Search - considered

We should indicate that the concept of ‘commercial mainstream’ is not a test for determining whether property is situated on a reserve; it is merely an aid to be used in evaluating the various factors being considered. ... Extremely important, particularly in this case, is the type of income being considered as attracting taxation. ... Funding provided under the INAC would be considered provided by “Her Majesty” as it is funding from the Federal Government. ...

I am of the opinion that a person who takes such actions can be considered a de facto director by third parties only if he or she introduces himself or herself as the director of the corporation or clearly suggests that he or she performs such actions as the director of the corporation. ... It is not sufficient that a person be signing cheques for the corporation for him or her to be considered a “de facto” director. ... The assessment of a de facto director should be considered only in cases where a person is representing himself or herself as a director. ...

The Federal Court considered this issue in Wolf v. The Queen, 2002 DTC 6853, and although the Court’s analysis was based on the Articles of the Civil Code of Quebec, it referenced the principles in Sagaz Industries. ... The Appellant told me that when she was hired no one ever told her she would be considered an independent contractor. ... I also believe she considered herself the Appellant’s employer only in the loose sense that the money flowed from the Ministry to her and she signed the cheques that paid the Appellant. ...

(Your patient is considered blind if visual acuity in both eyes with proper refractive lenses is 20/200 (6/60) or less with Snellen Chart or equivalent, or when the greatest diameter of the field of vision in both eyes is less than 20 degrees.)   ... Part B says that an individual will be considered blind if, even with the use of corrective lenses or medication, “visual acuity in both eyes is 20/200 (6/60) or less with the Snellen Chart (or equivalent) or the greatest diameter of the field of vision in both eyes is 20 degrees or less.” ... W-3) states:   7.1 (1) For the purposes of the Act, a person is considered to be blind if the person's visual acuity in both eyes with proper refractive lenses is 20/200 (6/60) or less in accordance with the Snellen Chart or its equivalent, or if the greatest diameter of the person's field of vision in both eyes is less than 20 degrees ...

While there was no financial success, he considered the exposure a success of some sort ... Thus, where the nature of a taxpayer’s venture contains elements which suggest that it could be considered a hobby or other personal pursuit, but the venture is undertaken in a sufficiently commercial manner, the venture will be considered a source of income for the purposes of the Act.   53        We emphasize that this “pursuit of profit” source test will only require analysis in situations where there is some personal or hobby element to the activity in question. ... This could be viewed as a start-up of a new musical venture, and could very much be considered to still be in the start-up phase, in line with Canada Revenue Agency’s earlier audit ...

As there was no discussion of this during argument, I have not considered it, nor have I considered whether this makes a difference as regards to deductibility ...   [29]     I have concluded, though, that the matter was sufficiently raised in the taxpayer’s letter of August 1, 2006 (Exhibit A-5) and in the notice of appeal and that it should be considered in this appeal ...   [32]     Finally, before concluding on this issue, I would comment that because the evidentiary record on this issue is poor, my conclusion should not be considered as binding on the calculation of capital cost allowance for later taxation years. ...

  [2]               The Minister determined that the worker was employed by Une Affaire d’Anglais under a contract of service, relying on the following presumptions of fact stated at paragraph 21 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal:   [translation] (a)                 the appellant was incorporated on July 15, 1993; (admitted) (b)                the appellant offered language training in English and other languages to business people and professionals; (admitted) (c)                 the appellant had 9 employees, including full-time trainers, and 35 to 40 part-time trainers, which the appellant considered sub-contractors; (admitted) (d)                the appellant had developed an original training program called "Go-Ahead"; (denied) (e)                 the language courses were given at the offices of the appellant's clients; (denied as written because courses were given outside the appellant's offices) (f)                  the worker is Australian, and immigrated to Canada in 1998; (no knowledge) (g)                 the worker had a bachelor's degree in history and a teaching licence; (no knowledge) (h)                 the appellant hired the worker in 2001; this was his first job in Canada; (denied) (i)                   the worker did not sign a contract with the appellant, but on September 18, 2003, the parties signed a non-solicitation and confidentiality agreement; (admitted) (j)                  the worker was an English trainer; (admitted) (k)                the worker's duties were to give 90-minute classes to the appellant's clients; (denied as written because the length of the classes varied) (l)                   when he was hired, the worker took a 2-day training session given by the appellant; (admitted) (m)                later, the worker took a 3- or 4-day training session to expand the "Go-Ahead" learning method; (denied) (n)                 these training sessions were mandatory for all new teachers, and at the beginning of each year, the worker was required to take a number of workshops to improve his skills and learn about the training plans; (denied because the training was not mandatory) (o)                the worker had the support of the appellant's technical team and a mentor appointed for a probationary period of 2 to 4 months; (denied) (p)                the training hours, training locations, students to train and training objectives were established by the appellant; (denied) (q)                training was generally given at the offices of the appellant's clients; (admitted) (r)                  the worker had to use the teaching method developed by the appellant; (denied) (s)                 the worker had to attend mandatory meetings to discuss objectives and ongoing problems; (denied) (t)                  the appellant provided the teaching material and exercises; (denied) (u)                 the worker had access to the appellant's offices to make photocopies (1000 per month), to access the library and the teachers' room for research and class preparation; (admitted) (v)                 the worker had to assess the students at the end of each session according to an evaluation grid and criteria established by the appellant; (admitted) (w)               the worker had to carry out his duties personally, and could not hire a replacement at any time to give the course in his place; (denied) (x)                 the worker reported regularly to the appellant, including billing, attendance lists and class operations according to the teaching plan; (denied) (y)                 the appellant, not the worker, was responsible for quality control and would receive any complaints from the clients; (denied) (z)                 the appellant trained the worker and provided specific instructions on how to carry out his work; (denied) (aa)             the worker billed the appellant at a rate of $22 per hour; (admitted) (bb)            the worker worked thirty-some hours per week for the appellant; (denied) (cc)             the appellant had asked the worker to register a corporate name and submit an invoice for services once a month; (denied) (dd)            on January 28, 2002, the worker registered a sole proprietorship with the corporate name "JohJoh"; (admitted) (ee)             the mandatory training courses were billed under "Various expenses"; (denied as written) (ff)                the appellant reimbursed the travel expenses (mileage and meals) for trainers outside a 20 kilometre radius; (denied as written) (gg)             the worker received an allowance for travel time and was reimbursed for beer and wine taken with the students at the end of the session; (admitted) (hh)             in 2003 and in 2004, the worker asked the appellant to be considered an employee; (denied) (ii)                 the worker complained to the Commission des normes du Travail, which, on April 25, 2006, sent a formal demand notice to the appellant for $5,978.78 including $3,416.80 for unpaid wages. ... These non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements are not considered non-competition or exclusivity agreements, nor are they considered contracts of employment; 20.               ...

  [11]     Counsel for the Respondent submitted that, if any work was still to be done in relation to the bed and breakfast property then the construction cannot be considered to be actually completed. However this could mean that no building could ever be considered to be actually completed since one could always find some minor deficiency or minor item that is not done when a new building is constructed ... It does not seem to me that this building could be considered to be actually completed in July 2003 since the Appellant spent over $8,000 in labour charges (not including supplies) in having the house painted in the fall of 2003 ...

"cohabiting spouse or common-law partner" of an individual at any time means the person who at that time is the individual’s spouse or common-law partner and who is not at that time living separate and apart from the individual and, for the purpose of this definition, a person shall not be considered to be living separate and apart from an individual at any time unless they were living separate and apart at that time, because of a breakdown of their marriage or common-law partnership, for a period of at least 90 days that includes that time;   [18]          Section 2 of the Universal Child Care Benefit Act defines "eligible individual" as follows:   "eligible individual" means a person who is an eligible individual for the purpose of Subdivision a.1 of Division E of Part I of the Income Tax Act ... The first condition for an individual to be considered an "eligible individual" is stated in paragraph (a) of the definition of this expression which requires that this individual "reside with the dependent". ... All things considered, residence implies a certain constancy, a certain regularity or else a certain permanence according to a person's usual lifestyle in relation to a given place and is to be distinguished from what might be called visits or stays for specific purposes or of a sporadic nature. ...

Couture’s traditional Chinese medicine acupuncturist’s expenses to qualify as a “medical expense” that generates a “medical expense tax credit”, the amounts paid to Professor Cheung must be able to be considered to be payments to a “medical practitioner” ... That Act will be considered below as part of the second stage determination of being authorized to practise ...   [27]     I am satisfied that, for purposes of the first step in this analysis, an Ontario acupuncturist such as Professor Cheung could be considered a medical practitioner in 2003 and 2004. ...