Search - considered

In attempting to solve the problem herein I have considered the plaintiff taxpayer’s testimony and his operations in relation to this particular transaction and compared them with other similiar purchases and sales of real estate entered into by him in or about the same period of time. ...

With all due respect, the presumption that the legislator did not by his legislation intend to require anyone to do the impossible was not considered and then rejected, and as this is an aspect which in my opinion is important in determining the subject appeal, I do not feel bound by the decision in Steer. ...

The remaining question is whether the amount in question is deductible under paragraph 11(1)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which reads as follows: 11. (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a), (b) and (h) of subsection (1) of section 12, the following amounts may be deducted in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year: (e) a reasonable amount as a reserve for (i) doubtful debts that have been included in computing the income of the taxpayer for that year or a previous year, and (ii) doubtful debts arising from loans made in the ordinary course of business by a taxpayer part of whose ordinary business was the lending of money; The relevant facts, in so far as they must be considered for my conclusion, are that (a) the related company made the loans in question, (b) the related company subsequently transferred the resulting debts to the respondent while they were still worth their face value, and (c) subsequently, the debts became of doubtful value. ...

The substantial question considered below was whether, in computing its tax, the appellant had the right to apply the provisions of Section 8(6) of the Income War Tax Act relating to certain deductions from taxes and applicable in certain circumstances with respect to drilling and exploration costs incurred on oil wells ultimately found unproductive and abandoned. ...

This means that the property falls within the concluding portion of subsection 123(1) and, therefore, it must be excluded from the definition of residential complex and considered a taxable supply made in the course of a commercial activity ...

Nothing in the reasons for judgment in that case indicate that the Court considered or decided either the question whether a company which had been dissolved had the capacity to conduct litigation or whether a former director had the right to conduct litigation on behalf of a dissolved corporation. ...

In order to conform to the general scheme of the Act, the provision can only mean that the corporation is entitled to 15% of the lesser of: “the amount by which the taxable income, as defined, exceeds the investment income” and not “the amount by which the taxable income (as defined) plus the loss carry back exceeds the investment income” for the simple reason that the loss carry back has already been considered in computing taxable income and failing a very clear provision of the Act to that effect, the same deduction should not be taken into account twice. ...

Consequently, Glen Dimplex approached the investors group and agreed that if the group would walk away from the deal (i.e. not make a bid with respect to Chromalox) Glen Dimplex would pay the group $1,000,000. (4)            Glen Dimplex feared that the $1,000,000 payment would attract GST and consequently raised the total to $1,070,000 to take into consideration the seven percent GST tax on the $1,000,000. (5)            There was some discussion as to whether the $70,000 should be considered as interest as opposed to GST but, in my opinion, the evidence leads to the conclusion that the $70,000 represented GST. (6)            Another fact is that the Appellant did not file a GST return in respect of the said transaction as it was the Appellant's conclusion that the transaction was exempt from GST as constituting either a financial service or a foreign transaction. (7)            The last reassessment by the Respondent took place on October 26, 1998 which is approximately six years after the filing due date. [3]            A Notice of Objection was filed with respect to the assessment of October 26, 1998. [4]            Some of the most relevant documents are the agreement between Glen Dimplex and the investors group which was signed in Toronto and a related trust agreement appointing John Ingle and Steven Overgaard as trustees for the investment group also signed in Toronto (Tabs 2 and 3 of the Appellant's Documents) ...

Volume of work in preparation, considered alone, or in conjunction with factors such as the difficulty and importance of the case, do not necessarily provide a basis for the exercise of a judicial discretion in favour of increasing costs. ...

The learned Judge of first instance considered this submission but rejected it on the ground that the Moore case was only “concerned with the debtor-creditor ralationship as defined by paragraph 2(r) of the Bankruptcy Act, the substance of which has not been changed”. ...