Search - considered

  [11]     In the case at bar, it is clear that the Appellant has not adduced evidence that possesses the minimal characteristics to be considered. ...

Indeed, payment of such fees is considered an expenditure incurred in recovering an amount owing under a pre-existing right; that type of expenditure is a current expense and therefore deductible (see Donald v. ...

I would note that if the respondent believes that pre-trial examination of experts is generally desirable, this is something that could be considered in the context of a proposal to amend s. 145(5) and the matter could then be studied in depth. [14]     For the above reasons, the motion is denied. ...

(d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or (b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse or common-law partner is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i)       is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (ii)       is a temporary resident within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii)      is a protected person within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (iv)      was determined before that time to be a member of a class defined in the Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations made under the Immigration Act, and for the purposes of this definition, (f) where a qualified dependent resides with the dependent's female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependent is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing. [15]     Mr. ...

In my view, that definition limits those matters in a separation agreement or a court Order that may be considered to be support amounts. ...

It is possible for a taxpayer to be considered the primary caregiver yet not be the eligible individual because he or she did not meet the residency requirements. [5]      During the periods in issue, the Appellant's son Michael resided with his father and for that reason, I dismiss the appeals. ...

Traditionally, expenses that simply make the taxpayer available to the business are not considered business expenses since the taxpayer is expected to be available to the business as a quid pro quo for business income received. ...

The C4, C5 and C6 discs in Trina's neck had been broken and she was considered to be a quadriplegic. ...

ISSUES: [10]     The issues are: (a)       Whether the Appellant is considered an eligible individual for the Children for the Period July 2001 to November 2003 and therefore, whether she is entitled to the CCTB for that Period pursuant to section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act (the " Act "); (b)      Whether the Appellant's Children are qualified dependents for the quarters beginning July 2002 to October 2003 for the 2001 and 2002 base taxation years and therefore, whether she is entitled to the GSTC for that Period in respect of the Children pursuant to section 122.5 of the Act; (c)      Whether the Appellant was overpaid CCTB for the 2000, 2001 and 2002 base taxation years in the amount of $9,161.72 consisting of:                    (i)       $4,550.34 for the 2000 base taxation year;                    (ii)       $3,525.50 for the 2001 base taxation year; and                    (iii)      $1,085.88 for the 2002 base taxation year; and (d)      Whether the Appellant was overpaid GSTC for the 2001 and 2002 base taxation years in the amount of $405.00 consisting of:                    (i)       $297.00 for the 2001 base taxation year; and                    (ii)       $108.00 for the 2002 base taxation year. [11]     During the hearing the Appellant testified that from the time of separation until December 2002 she received the CCTB for both of the Children. [12]     The Appellant also testified that she and her ex-husband agreed (verbally) that Michael would claim the CCTB for one child and she would claim the CCTB for the other child. [13]     The Appellant also testified that the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") reversed their position regarding the CCTB payments because Michael told an official of the CRA that he was the "primary caregiver" of the Children since 2000. [14]     The Appellant also testified that she was the primary caregiver of the Children from January 2000 to October 2000. ...

ANALYSIS:   [10]     Counsel for the Respondent said that the Minister disallowed the Truck expenses claimed by the Appellant because they were considered to be expenses primarily incurred in travelling from the Appellant's home to his employer's place of business ...