Search - considered

Likewise, I am of the opinion that the relevant income from the two businesses carried on by a corporation is an important element to be considered in determining which is the chief business, but that it is not the only matter to be considered, and not necessarily the determining factor. ...

Balatoni rarely visited the kitchen, she considered her pastry chefs independent and, therefore, “independent contractors”. ... In making such determination, the following factors should generally be considered: a) Does the hirer control the worker’s activities? ...

Whether any stage in the proceedings was improper, vexatious, or unnecessary, or taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution [21] I will treat this factor as neutral as I have already considered it in my earlier discussion. Step 2: The Percentage of Costs [22] I have considered the percentage of costs awarded by the Court, including the following: Enhanced Costs Award Case 20% General Electric Capital Canada Inc. v The Queen, 2010 TCC 490 20% (and 60%) Grenon v The Queen, 2021 TCC 89 30% Klemen v R, 2014 TCC 369 35% Cameco Corporation v The Queen, 2019 TCC 92 35% Damis Properties Inc. v The Queen, 2021 TCC 44 36% CIT Group Securities (Canada) Inc. v The Queen, 2017 TCC 86 39% Chad v The King, 2023 TCC 76 40% Invesco Canada Ltd. v R, 2015 TCC 92 45% Paletta Estate v The Queen, 2021 TCC 41 50% Univar Holdco Canada ULC v The Queen, 2020 TCC 15 Conclusion [23] In light of my consideration of the factors set out in subsection 147(3) of the Rules, and my review of the Court’s costs decisions, 35% of total costs strikes me as an appropriate award for the Respondent. [24] This amounts to a fixed cost award of $92,728.42. ...

(b) The amounts in issue [8] The significance of the amounts in issue must be considered contextually and in relative terms. [6] In this instance, the amount of GST in issue was in the range of $200,000 per year based on fees paid by the appellant in the $4M range each year [7] and set against gross revenues exceeding $100M annually. [8] [9] The appellant says that the amounts in issue are greater than meets the eye because subsequent years are under audit and turned on the outcome of this appeal. ... (d) Any offer of settlement made in writing [12] No written settlement offers were made so substantial indemnity costs [9] cannot be considered. ...

The imposition by the legislator on the citizen of an obligation (which always restricts his freedom) is considered to be non-existent if it is not clearly expressed. ... Exemptions of this type are so closely related to the taxpayer’s personal and family life that they may be considered rightfully his. ...

Counsel did not view the judgment in Cadboro Bay (supra) as definitive in recognizing only two types of income—from “business” or “property”, but asserted that, considered in conjunction with the Rockmore decision (supra), income such as that demonstrated in this case should be more appropriately classified as from a "passive business” operation, and therefore not qualified for the deduction sought. ... When the activity extends beyond such servicing (primarily the receipt of dividends, interest or rentals, and the operation and administration directly connected with such receipt of income) a case may be made as in Rockmore Investments (supra), that there are commercial as well as investment aspects to be considered. ...

He also stated that the city made an offer that he considered insufficient and consequently refused it; that the city should have bought his farm because it was cheaper than other lands it acquired. ... Counsel for appellant terminated by saying that the appraiser for the respondent should have used the F & M property as a comparable to appraise the appellant’s farm because the property should not be considered as agricultural but as commercial land for its appraisal on V-Day. ...

Presumably it has not been considered adequate by the Department. A letter of opinion (in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Circular) was not obtained by the taxpayer, but two offers to purchase were filed with the Board. These were not considered acceptable by the Department since they contained conditions required by the interested purchaser. ...

On my 1975 taxes, I submitted what I considered legitimate expenses and they were disallowed. ... A trip from his home to his employer’s work site is not considered to fall within that subsection and, as the Board knows, there are several decisions. ...

The Board considered as being proven in its entirety the following subparagraphs of paragraph 6 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal: a) the Appellant is a land developer who through companies and partnerships in which he and his brother and their respective wives hold interests has been involved in the business of construction and sale of residential properties; b) the Appellant and his brother David Welton, each have a 50% interest in the following companies; Welton Limited; Welglen Limited; Rivergate Limited; the Appellant was president of Welton Limited; c) Joan Welton, the wife of the Appellant is the beneficial owner of all of the shares of Zebulon Limited; Iva Welton, the wife of the Appellant’s brother, David is the beneficial owner of all of the shares of Roton Limited; Zebulon and Roton have formed a corporate partnership under the name of Zebro Estates which is a land owning company; d) by Deed dated June 14, 1966 the- Appellant through his wife acquired a parcel of land in a subdivision development in Mississauga for $5,000 from Rogerswood Estates a corporate partnership in which the wives of the Appellant and his brother were partners; Welton Limited constructed a house on the property for the Appellant at the cost price to Welton Limited; the Appellant and his wife and family lived there for approximately two years; e) by Deed dated October 24, 1968 and registered November 5, 1968 the Appellant sold this property in an arm’s length transaction for $55,250; the Appellant treated the gain made on the sale as a Capital gain; f) by Deed dated October 29, 1968, the Appellant through his wife acquired from Welton Limited another piece of land in Mississauga on which a house had been constructed by Welton Limited. ... He sold it because 1) it was in the midst of sixty other houses; 2) the neighbours who bought the houses from the company were always asking for something or complaining about the houses; 3) they were considered as second-class citizens and his wife could not stand that anymore. ...