Search - considered

The problem for the Board, however, arises from the fact that had he continued to perceive himself as the development instrument of Border when it was evident to him that a profit of some $5,074.68 had been realized through these efforts, he should have considered leaving the funds so gained to the credit of Border. If one accepts the rationale put forward by the appellant—and I believe I at least comprehend it—then it follows that if the exercise had been a global one, all for the purpose of getting the company launched, then the net gain or loss on it might well have been considered as attributable to the company. ...

The appellant itself, or its shareholders, save one, had no history of real estate trading and were not considered to be knowledgeable in real estate. ... However, having established that the appellant’s primary intention in acquiring the land was to develop the estates; having concluded that it had no secondary intention, at the time of purchase, of selling the land and having accepted that the decision to sell the land was because its plan had been frustrated by circumstances beyond its control, the fact that the land was listed for sale in 1973 after the decision to sell had been made cannot be considered by the Board as a valid indication that the appellant had acquired the land in 1965 speculatively with the intention of turning it to profit. ...

The paragraph reads: 20. (6) For the purpose of this section and regulations made under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11, the following rules apply: (g) where an amount can reasonably be regarded as being in part the consideration for disposition of depreciable property of a taxpayer of a prescribed class and as being in part consideration for something else, the part of the amount that can reasonably be regarded as being the consideration for such disposition shall be deemed to be the proceeds of disposition of depreciable property of that class irrespective of the form or legal effect of the contract or agreement; and the person to whom the depreciablie property was disposed of shall be deemed to have acquired the property at a capital cost to him equal to the same part of that amount; Defendant alleges, of course, that the purchase price of $40,000 was in consideration of land only, and that at no time was any portion of the sale price considered to be in respect of the building. ... Mrs Baziuk did say that she considered giving the place away to one of her favourite charities. ...

The question to be determined, therefore, is whether or not the appellant was carrying on a business — and, indeed, whether what is commonly known as “playing the stock market” can be considered to be a business within the meaning of the definition contained in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act. ... Counsel for the respondent also suggested that the Minister was rather lenient in his treatment of the profits derived from the purchase and sale of stocks when administering the old Income Tax Act and considered such transactions as a form of investment rather than as the actual business of trading in stocks, because full disclosure of the profits realized by the countless Canadians who play the stock market to a considerable extent would be well-nigh impossible for the Department of National Revenue to control effectively. ...

It is possible that in certain circumstances acceptance of a cheque may be considered acceptance of an offer but, in my view, if true acceptance of an offer by the recipient is to exist, it is essential that the payment be made pursuant to an agreement in which some degree of freedom of action and choice for both parties exists. ... Under the circumstances, the acceptance by the wife of the payments which the appellant was already legally bound to make cannot be considered acceptance by her of a pollicitation made by the appellant, and I do not see it as a written agreement within the terms of paragraph 11(1)(1) or 11(1)(la). ...

In my view, the amount of tax-paid contributions made by the appellants into the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund according to the terms of that particular plan cannot be considered as part of the taxable pension benefits received by the appellants from the fund without imposing double taxation on the appellants. The employer’s contributions into the fund, which resulted in increased monthly returns to the appellants when they ceased to be employees of the United Nations Secretariat, might well be considered taxable in their hands as “other income” but, in my opinion, we then are, in those circumstances, no longer dealing with the basic concept of what a pension plan really is. ...

It was also noted by the Board that it might not be considered the normal responsibility of the Department to do net worth assessments on a taxpayer more than once, and then only under extreme circumstances. ... Based on the evidence available and the testimony given, the Board recommends that an amount of $2,500 be allowed to the partnership during each of the taxation years 1966 through 1971, for additional farm expenses, to be considered as having been paid in cash by the appellants, for which receipts are unavailable, and that the assessments be referred back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment. ...

Counsel for the appellant, in his argument, submitted that “interest” has to have certain attributes before it can be considered to be of an income nature, namely, (1) there must be a principal amount owing, and (2) there must be a day-to-day accrual of interest. He submitted that the name given to a transaction does not necessarily decide its nature and that the use of the word “interest” in the agreement could not be considered as the determining factor in the case. ...

In my opinion, the net dollar and cents position, when viewed through five years of hindsight is not the only, or conclusive criterion, to be considered in determining the question of fact: Has the chief source of income been farming? ... In my opinion, all the surrounding facts and circumstances must be considered. ...

The answers indicate that in the years concerned the plaintiff was considered to be running a farming operation but as he had no taxable income in those years or in the previous 3 years from that farming business his chief source of income was considered to be neither farming nor a combination of farming and some other source of income. ...