Search - considered

[13] Paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Act requires that all amounts received by a taxpayer in a year that were payable to the taxpayer on a periodic basis in respect of the loss of all or any part of the taxpayer’s income from an office or employment pursuant to a disability insurance plan to or under which the taxpayer’s employer has made a contribution be included in the taxpayer’s income employment insurance benefits. [14] The WLRP benefit payments paid to an employee are considered to be employment income because they are paid in respect of an employment. The employees receive the benefits on a periodic basis for loss of employment income due to sickness, maternity or accident. [15] When benefit payments are made by a third party, such as an insurance company in this case, who is not the actual employer, the third party is deemed to be the employer because the actual employer is the party liable to pay its employees. [16] Pursuant to paragraph 153(1)a) of the Act, the person making the WLRP benefit payments is required to deduct or withhold from the payments the amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules for income tax purposes. [17] Paragraph 200(2)f) of the Income Tax Regulations (C.R.C, ch.945), stipulates that every person who makes a payment described in subsection 153(1) of the Act shall make an information return in prescribed form in respect of the payment and subsection 200(2) of the Regulations requires from every person who makes a payment as or an account of, or who confers a benefit or allocates an amount that is in paragraph (f) an amount payable to a taxpayer on a periodic basis in respect of the loss of all or any part of his income from an office or employment, pursuant to (i) a sickness or accident insurance plan (ii) a disability insurance plan or (iii) an income maintenance insurance plan, to or under which his employer has made a contribution, to make an information return in prescribed form in respect of such payment or benefit. [18] Considering the fact that the WLRP benefit payments paid to an employee by his employer or by a third party on behalf or his employer are considered to be employment income, they shall be reported on T4 slips by the employer. ...

Clarke requested relief for the 2010-2015 taxation years, the CRA only considered the 2010 and 2011 taxation years where interest had been applied. [7] The CRA credited Ms. ... The officer also found that the Applicant knowingly allowed a balance to exist, failed to take reasonable care in conducting her affairs, and failed to act quickly to remedy the delay or omission and therefore refused further relief. [10] In a decision dated January 26, 2021, the CRA team leader of the appeals branch of the Taxpayer Relief Centre of Expertise who considered the Second Level Review (“CRA Appeals Team Leader”) accepted the recommendation to partially approve the request. ...

M.N.R. case and it would be superfluous to repeat here the arguments and jurisprudence I considered in reaching the conclusions I did in that case. What must now be considered is whether there are any differences in the evidence as to the personal background and apparent intentions of the late Donald F. ...

That conclusion, however, would, in my view, be reached not because what was being considered was an extension of a previously existing mine but because on the facts as disclosed it could not by itself be regarded as a mine in the ordinary sense of the word. It will no doubt in every close situation become a matter of fact and degree whether or not what is being considered is a mine but to my mind the example I have put is far different from the present situation where all the elements necessary for a distinct mine appear to me to be present. ...

That was indicated by the fact that the buildings were sold for $200 and therefore the appellant contended that the Board considered the buildings had no value. ... In the determination of that value to the owner various items may be considered and these will vary according to the circumstances of particular cases. ...

He testified that the appellant company had never built for speculation and when, on November 27, 1970, he received a letter from Conestoga College offering to purchase the Guelph operation, he considered it as providential because his company was experiencing a serious shortage of working capital. ... That onus is not incapable of discharge, and here I think the Appellant did discharge it. 17 He submitted that the onus has been discharged because during 45 years the appellant company has never traded in the sphere of real estate; when the appellant bought property the purpose was to increase its investment portfolio which shows rental revenue of $208,000 in 1974. 18 He stated that the evidence is uncontradicted as to the fact that the appellant's intention was to keep the building even though in three cases there was an option of ten years to sell; that the Guelph operation was sold at the request of the School Board and because the company had a shortage of working capital at that moment; that everything done by the appellant was consistent with its intention and that the theory of secondary intention cannot be considered in the case at bar. 19 He also submitted the appellant's sole business has always been that of a custom building contractor and that the offer to purchase by the Guelph Centre was fortuitous and unsolicited; that the transaction bears none of the indicia of trade and that, accordingly, the gain realized should be deleted from the appellant's income. 20 Counsel for the respondent submitted that the gain should be taxed because when the appellant entered into an agreement with the different School Boards for the erection and renting of the building it agreed to sell by granting them an option of ten years. ...

The Minister may obtain the advice of the Department of National Health and Welfare as to whether an individual in respect of whom an amount has been claimed under subsection (1) or (2) has a severe and prolonged impairment, the effects of which are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, and any person referred to in subsection (1) or (2) shall, on request in writing by that Department for information with respect to an individual's impairment and its effects on the individual, provide the information so requested. 118.4: Nature of impairment. (1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or may reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. 4.02 Analysis 24 4.02.1 There is no doubt in the Court's mind that Parliament should amend the Act so that persons afflicted with Tourette's syndrome, having severe tics, may be considered as suffering from an impairment giving rise to a non-refundable tax credit. ...

Thus, it cost the applicant $9,735.00 in 1991 to send his two children there, whereas he would not have had to spend anything if his children had attended public school in Gatineau, Quebec, where he lived. 5 To remedy this financial disadvantage for the Department's rotational employees, the Treasury Board Secretariat has adopted the following directive. 33.01 The provisions of this directive are available to career foreign service employees as defined in FSD 3.01(a) and to RCMP Liaison Officers, while serving in the headquarters city, in order to ensure continuity in French language education for their dependent children while serving outside Canada. 33.02 The deputy head may authorize payment of the cost of tuition, prescribed textbooks (up to the equivalent of Ontario Grade 12/OAC) and school supplies (up to the equivalent of Ontario Grade 8) incurred at the Lycée Claudel in Ottawa in respect of: (a) children who were registered in the French lycée system during the assignment of the employee abroad; (b) children who commence primary schooling in the first year of the lycée system during the assignment of an employee in Ottawa following an assignment abroad; and (c) children who are enrolled in the Lycée Claudel where an employee has not been offered an initial assignment outside Canada. 33.03 Payment authorized in accordance with Section 33.02 shall normally be limited to the two-year period immediately following: (a) the employee's assignment to Ottawa from abroad, and/or (b) the date on which the employee commences rotational employment. 33.04 Exceptions to the limitations prescribed by Section 33.03 may be considered on an individual basis by the deputy head of the employing department, who may approve extensions of up to one year at a time as a result of operational requirements. ... All things considered, the relationship between these expenses, which were reimbursed by the Government of Canada, and the appellant's employment, although a close one, does not seem to me to be close enough to place the reimbursement of those expenses beyond the fiscal scope of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act. ...

The total amount of the expenses claimed was $28,816.94. 10 The Appellant stated that the Employer paid the travel allowance to only one employee per trip in order to encourage car pooling since the cost was passed on to the client; however, he considered that the time to travel from home to Talbot Street was a waste of time and that it was unreasonable to be expected to car pool. ... He remembered receiving a letter from Revenue Canada dated June 20, 1995 setting out the following details of the reduction of the allowable expenses from $2,816.94 claimed to $1,157.97: We have accepted the total expenses claimed however we have reduced your business mileage by the distance which is equivalent to the distance between your home and your employer's place of business as this is considered to be personal travel and not deductible. ...

The government regards this income a priori as ordinarily taxable without taking into account, first, that these are not ordinary benefits but an allowance to pay child care expenses (which has nothing to do with the calculation used to arrive at the basic amount allowed the claimant weekly, an amount to which the allowance is added rather than being considered separately), and second, that the expense sina qua non which generates this income should logically be automatically deductible by the taxpayer. From whatever angle this problem is considered, there is an obvious inequity in the rights of taxpayers depending on whether they are self-employed or the program in which they are participants, and it does not give them the same privileges in tax deductions, because a highly bureaucratic government system (unemployment insurance) cannot consistently adapt itself to its own peculiarities. ...