Search - considered

The learned trial judge devoted the major part of his carefully considered reasons to this issue. ... I would only observe that to the extent the learned judge considered the retroactive amendment of subsection 75(2) of the Act significant to the Company’s claim under subsection 106, I respectfully disagree. ... Conversely, if non-taxable income is not to be considered “income” for the purposes of subsection 106(1), it should also be excluded from the “incomes” referred to in subsection 106(5). ...

The Facts 3.01 It is understood that for the 1978 taxation year, the respondent deleted the net fishing income of $7,654 which had been included in the income on the basis that the appellant was not considered to be in the fishing business. ... The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer’s training, the taxpayer’s intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... The farmer then is free of the limitation of section 31(1), and therefore it is understood that he must be considered as carrying on a business, farming with a “reasonable expectation of profit”. ...

However, the $15,075 not allowed for was not in any way considered collectible by G I Norbraten Architect Limited and, accordingly, should not have been included in taxable income. 11. ... Whether that calculation is proper, the Board need not determine under the circumstances of this case — that is not the point to be considered at this time. ... According to counsel for the Minister, considering the payment period available to the debtor company, the amount could not even be considered overdue by that date. ...

They are the kind of signs for which the expenses under appeal are claimed; (b) the appellant considered that kind of advertising as being the same as television advertising. ... As advertising physical signs are commonly used in business, and as the legislator provides in the regulations for capital cost allowance of 35% for electrical advertising signs and outdoor advertising poster panels when used to earn rental income (Class II), therefore, since in the instant case, the illuminated signs are made to last many years and the electric scoreboards are under a 10-year contract with another 10-year option, it is my commonsense appreciation to conclude that the advertising physical signs must be considered as bringing into existence an advantage for an enduring benefit. ... The exceptions do not include advertising signs so they fall in this class. 4.03.4 According to the tax specialist witness (para 3.05(b)) the physical signs cannot be considered to have enduring benefit because “tomorrow Pepsi-Cola may suddenly be determined to be a cancer causing agent, and no one would buy the product any more”. ...

In my opinion, the earning of income from funds placed on deposit in this way is fundamentally an investment transaction and since this taxpayer is not in the investment business, such income would appear, on a prima facie basis, to come within the intent of paragraph 129(4)(a) which reads as follows: “CANADIAN INVESTMENT INCOME” AND “FOREIGN INVESTMENT INCOME” DEFINED (4) In subsection (3), (a) “Canadian investment income” of a corporation for a taxation year means the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of (i) the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of such of the corporation’s taxable capital gains for the year from dispositions of property as may reasonably be considered to be income from sources in Canada exceeds the aggregate of such of the corporation’s allowable capital losses for the year from dispositions of property as may reasonably be considered to be losses from sources in Canada, (ii) all amounts each of which is the corporation’s income for the year (other than exempt income or any dividend the amount of which was deductible under section 112 from its income for the year) from a source in Canada that is a property (other than a property used or held by the corporation in the year in the course of carrying on a business), determined, for greater certainty, after deducting all outlays and expenses deductible in computing the corporation’s income for the year to the extent that they may reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred for the purposes of earning the income from that property, (iii) all amounts each of which is the corporation’s income for the year (other than exempt income) from a source in Canada that is a business other than an active business, determined, for greater certainty, after deducting all outlays and expenses deductible in computing the corporation’s income for the year to the extent that they may reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred for the purpose of earning the income from that business, exceeds the aggregate of amounts each of which is a loss of the corporation for the year from a source in Canada that is a property or business other than an active business; and Any doubt, of course, must be resolved in reference to the precise language of the statute, and in this respect, a number of decisions prior to 1974 have established that, in the terms of subparagraph (ii), “property” includes money, so that income from invested money may be “income from a source in Canada that is a property”. ... The Board earlier considered a very similar situation in March Shipping Ltd v MNR, [1977] CTC 2527; 77 DTC 371, in which the taxpayer was in the business of providing services to shipping companies and received advance payments, somewhat in the nature of retainers, which it invested in short-term deposits. The Board made the following findings: that these were fundamentally investment transactions; that since the taxpayer was not in the investment business, these transactions could only be considered “integral” if the specific function under review formed a necessary part of the whole operation, ie, that it provided a significant impact on the total revenue produced, which it did not; that these investments were subsidiary or ancillary to the taxpayer’s main business and the return was therefore Canadian investment income as defined by subsection 129(4). ...

It is the respondent’s submission that although the appellant was engaged in farming which did have a reasonable expectation of profit, it was a sideline business whose profit was not sufficient to be considered as the appellant’s chief source of income nor was it in combination with some other source of income or the appellant’s chief source of income in 1974, the taxation year under appeal. ... It also provides, as I see it, basic principles on which more marginal facts can also be legally considered. ... I do not think that one can rightly conclude that a taxpayer does not look to farming as his chief source of income on the sole basis that the profit from farming is not sufficiently high to be considered as chief source in the year under appeal as suggested by counsel for the respondent. ...

Gunter Gahrns v Her Majesty the Queen, [1978] CTC 651; 78 DTC 6436. 4.3 Comments 4.3.1 The amount of $31,579 received by the appellant from Pan-Abode is considered by the parties: (a) aS an income, because it is a receipt for past services or a profit from a business (an adventure of the nature of trade); or (b) as a taxable capital gain; or, (c) a non-taxable receipt on account of capital. 4.3.2 The $31,579, an income? ... Indeed, it is of no significance that the appellant received the income in a different way from that first contemplated: as finder’s fee paid by the shareholders or Pan-Abode, or later by the Capozzi family for staying “out of the picture”; (e) The amount of $45,000 received by the appellant from Mr Hecht was considered as non-taxable by the respondent, $7,457 of the amount of $31,579, must be considered as a receipt on account of capital and non- taxable and the remaining $24,122 must be considered as income from an adventure in the nature of trade. 5. ...

The appellant made reference in his “Statement of Facts” to some 22 sales of property in the general area during the time period 1970-1975 which he considered relevant. ... It should be understood that this is not an attempt at “horse-trading”, but our considered opinion of the realities of the situation. ... Argument While providing little in the way of jurisprudence upon which his case could be founded, the appellant commented: I have considered and do consider my ranch superior to this piece of property as far as this cow-calf operation goes for these reasons. ...

He considered the financial statements, thought the drawings of the owners and the expenses were irrelevant, and reviewed the contracts he had. ... All things considered, Mr Rose was of the opinion that if goodwill existed it was personal goodwill and so, not transferable. ... It would appear that Mr Gordon and Mr Cowan were of the view that the goodwill was transferable, however no considered opinion was given as to its value. ...

Canada) [1995] 1 C.T.C. 2857(D), 95 D.T.C. 415, the Honourable Judge Hamlyn considered the appeal of the taxpayer who suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgia. ... In addition, paragraph 118.4(l)(d) states that, other than activities listed in (c): (d)... no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or a recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ... Canada) [1995] 2 C.T.C. 2750(D), an oral judgment of Judge Sarchuk, Tax Court of Canada, dealt with the disability tax credit entitlement of a taxpayer who suffered from myalgic encephalomyelitis, commonly known as chronic fatigue syndrome, Judge Sarchuk stated: I note that paragraph (d) provides that “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”. ...