Search - considered

Regulation 9.1 that deals with the methods of determining insurable hours states: Where a person's earnings are paid on an hourly basis, the person is considered to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person actually worked and for which the person was remunerated. ...

Hynes testified that he called her almost daily to report on progress and to seek her advice regarding the suitability of contracts being considered. ...

The issue is whether the $27,598.92 she earned and received in 1995 can be considered her income in 2001 pursuant to subparagraph 118(1)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. ...

This is required because of the wording of subsection 60.1(3) which indicates: 60.1(3) For the purposes of this section and section 60, where a written agreement... made at any time in a taxation year provides that an amount paid before that time and in the year or the preceding taxation year is to be considered to have been paid and received thereunder,             (a)         the amount is deemed to have been paid thereunder;... [6]      So the question simply is, was a written agreement made between Mr. and Mrs. ...

," are considered designated financial institutions. [3]      The issue is whether Mr. ...

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Bédard J. [1]      This is an appeal under the informal procedure concerning the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) for the 2001 base year. [2]      On April 17, 2003, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") issued a notice of reassessment in respect of the Appellant concerning the CCTB for the 2001 base year. [3]      In that notice, the Minister claimed from the Appellant repayment of a CCTB overpayment amounting to $949.69 for the 2001 base year. [4]      In making the notice of reassessment concerning the CCTB for the base year in question, the Minister relied on the following facts stated in paragraph 5 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal: [TRANSLATION] (a)         The Appellant is the grandmother of Joseph Kaleba Mutemberi; (b)         The Appellant had custody of Joseph Kaleba Mutemberi until October 30, 2002; (c)         From October 30, 2002, until March 2003, Joseph Kaleba Mutemberi was under the custody of his aunt Sidonie Kaleba; (d)         The Minister determined that the Appellant was not the eligible individual in respect of her grandson Joseph Kaleba Mutemberi for the period from November 2002 to March 2003 under section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter the "Act"); (e)         The Minister therefore determined that the Appellant was not entitled to the amount of $949.69 for the 2001 base year. [5]      The only issue is whether the Minister wrongly decided that the Appellant was not an eligible individual for the period in issue, from November 2002 to March 2003. [6]      The definition of "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") read at the time as follows: " eligible individual "- " eligible individual " in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse or common-law partner of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(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 purpose of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant's female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing. [7]      Here we shall consider only the conditions established in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act. [8]      The questions are thus: (i)       whether the Appellant resided with her grandson from November 2002 to March 2003; (ii)       whether the Appellant was the parent who primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the grandson. ...

In other words the Appellant believed that he was obliged to continue to pay the payments required by the Separation Agreement and the payments required by the Divorce Judgment. [18]     Counsel for the Respondent argued that the Definition Agreement would constitute an amendment and therefore the Support Payments that were made by the Appellant were not Support Payments within the meaning of section 60.1 of the Income Tax Act (the " Act "). [19]     I have carefully considered the documents that were filed with the Court and the evidence presented to the Court and I have concluded that the Definition Agreement document dated the 4th day of October 2000 (Exhibit R-1, Tab 3) did not constitute a new or varied Separation Agreement. ...

Kip Campbell                                           $50.00 For the services of counsel             For preparation of the Notice of Appeal            $225.00             For preparation of hearing                                 $300.00             For conducting the hearing                                $900.00 (2 half days)                                                                                 $7,368.00 [11]     I have carefully reviewed and considered the Appellant's Motion Record and the Respondent's Motion Record and I have concluded that the Appellant should be awarded costs determined as follows: For Expert Witness Fees:         Anthony Laws, M.D ...

If the appellant consulted her accountant, we can at least infer from that fact, since she asked the question, that she might have considered it possible that she was subject to the GST.  ...

I have considered this position and have concluded that the correspondence of August 10, 2001, was not a notice requiring a response by way of a Notice of Objection, but was simply part of the April assessment, which indicated the GST credit answer would subsequently be provided to Mr. ...