Search - considered

The amount of a terminal loss that the taxpayer is permitted but failed to take under this section must be considered as depreciation allowed for the purposes of the calcula­tion of the undepreciated capital cost of such property. ... Brooks [4], at p.506: It is beyond dispute, too, that we are entitled and indeed bound when construing the terms of any provi­sion found in a statute to consider any other parts of the Act which throw light upon the intention of the legisla­ture and which may serve to shew that the particular provision ought not to be construed as it would be if considered alone and apart from the rest of the Act. ... I am therefore of the view that in calculating the undepreciated capital cost of depreciable property of a class, the amount of a terminal loss that the taxpayer was permitted but failed to take under Regulation 1100(2) must be considered as "depreciation allowed" for the purposes of the calculation of the undepreciated capital cost of such property. ...

Alternatively, defendant contends that the construction and sale of the hydroplane floats was a speculative operation and that for this reason the bad debt should be considered as resulting from an adventure in the nature of trade and deductible as a loss in the calculation of his income. ... He considered the shares to be worthless and did not consider the ‘acquiring of these shares as an inducement for the making of the loans, even though the $111,500 with which we are here concerned was advanced after he and Mr Bolduc became shareholders. ... While there is no doubt that the matter in issue was an important and interesting one and that counsel for defendant is experienced in these matters and can be presumed to have devoted considerable time to the preparation of the case, it nevertheless appears to me to be contrary to the spirit and intention of subsection 178(2) to argue that on the one hand the Minister should pay all reasonable and proper costs of the taxpayer because the amount of the tax involved in the assessments for the year which is before the Court does not exceed $2,500, while, on the other hand, in estimating what are the reasonable and proper costs, consideration should be given to the fact that a sum substantially more than this will be involved if the total amount of income to be deducted over a period of years is taken into consideration, and that because of this the importance of the matter is consider- ably greater than one involving a tax of under $2,500 with the result that if the fees which taxpayer’s counsel charges to taxpayer reflect the fact that this larger sum is in issue, these should be considered as reasonable and proper costs of the taxpayer which the Minister will be obliged to pay under subsection 178(2). ...

  [33]    As for the potential application of section 245, counsel for the appellant referred to subsection 245(3) of the Act:   245(3)  Avoidance transaction — An avoidance transaction means any transaction   (a)        that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit; or   (b)        that is part of a series of transactions, which series, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit ... According to the main argument made by the son, who was representing his mother in court, the series of transactions could not be considered an abuse of the provisions of the Income Tax Act because a sale of the shares to a corporation controlled by a third party would have been acceptable. ...

The Appellant stated that the promised one-ninth of the estate was not a benefit he considered in accepting the offer of employment contained in the March 11, 1987 letter. ... In Tsiaprailis, it was only that part of the settlement amount allocated to the arrears owing by the insurer that were considered income. The part of the settlement amount located to the right to future benefits was considered a capital receipt, not an income receipt. ...

If it is determined that multiple supplies were made then the deeming provisions in section 138 and 139 of the HST Legislation must be considered. ...   [29]          The factual question of whether a supplier has made a single supply or multiple supplies has been considered by the Court and the Federal Court of Appeal on numerous occasions. ...   [31]          When reaching his decision Justice Rip made the following observations:   One factor to be considered is whether or not the alleged separate supply can be realistically omitted from the overall supply. ...

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. ... In 1982 and in 1984 some buildings in the area near Fonthill were considered in a preliminary way as possible sites for such a centre, but without a major sponsor and with very limited resources the matter was not further followed up. ... It seemed evident from his testimony that personal qualities, an ability to present the sport and the rally team in a positive light reflecting well upon the sponsor would be a factor considered by a prospective sponsor. ...

En cas d'opération d'évitement, les attributs fiscaux d'une personne doivent être déterminés de façon raisonnable dans les circonstances de façon à supprimer un avantage fiscal qui, sans le présent article, découlerait, directement ou indirectement, de cette opération ou d'une série d'opérations dont cette opération fait partie. (3) Avoidance transaction- An avoidance transaction means any transaction (a) that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit; or (3) Opération d'évitement. L'opération d'évitement s'entend: a) soit de l'opération dont, sans le présent article, découlerait, directement ou indirectement, un avantage fiscal, sauf s'il est raisonnable de considérer que l'opération est principalement effectuée pour des objets véritables- l'obtention de l'avantage fiscal n'étant pas considérée comme un objet véritable; (b) that is part of a series of transactions, which series, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. [...] b) soit de l'opération qui fait partie d'une série d'opérations dont, sans le présent article, découlerait, directement ou indirectement, un avantage fiscal, sauf s'il est raisonnable de considérer que l'opération est principalement effectuée pour des objets véritables- l'obtention de l'avantage fiscal n'étant pas considérée comme un objet véritable. [...] (5) Determination of tax consequences- Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), (a) any deduction in computing income, taxable income, taxable income earned in Canada or tax payable or any part thereof may be allowed or disallowed in whole or in part, (b) any such deduction, any income, loss or other amount or part thereof may be allocated to any person, (c) the nature of any payment or other amount may be recharacterized, and (d) the tax effects that would otherwise result from the application of other provisions of this Act may be ignored, in determining the tax consequences to a person as is reasonable in the circumstances in order to deny a tax benefit that would, but for this section, result, directly or indirectly, from an avoidance transaction. (5) Attributs fiscaux à déterminer. ... However, his whole interpretation of subsection 245(7) indicates that he considered the "notwithstanding" language and interpreted it to apply to the more narrow aspect of "subsequent" assessments undertaken by the Minister pursuant to subsections 245(6) and 245(8). ...

As a result, certain shares of public companies acquired in exchange for private company shares should not have been considered “taxable Canadian property” when the ownership thereof moved from Canada to the United States. ... CES' solicitors but did state in response to questions from the opposition that he accepted the majority report of the standing committee which endorsed the Minister's handling of the Rulings and rejected the Auditor's critique thereof. 8 The facts alleged by the plaintiff are that in 1984, the Minister was asked by a party whose identity is not known to the plaintiff, for a ruling declaring that public company shares held by a trust resident in Canada would be considered “taxable Canadian property” under the Act and that a change in residence of the trust would not cause a deemed realization. ... After the first prayer for relief, the plaintiff inserts in the Statement of Claim a further six paragraphs of facts; and then (f) claims a declaration that in receiving and responding to the 1991 Ruling request, the Minister was acting in a fiduciary capacity, or was acting in a capacity akin to a fiduciary, toward the class of plaintiffs described herein; and (g) a declaration that the Minister breached the said fiduciary duty or fiduciary-like duty in the following respects: (i) by agreeing to issue an Advance Tax Ruling in circumstances where the share exchange had already taken place, and therefore the transaction which was to be the subject of the Ruling was substantially completed, all of which was contrary to established Revenue Canada policy and procedure, which allows for Rulings respecting proposed transactions only; and (ii) by agreeing to issue a Ruling when Revenue Canada believed that the Act did not allow for such a favourable Ruling, or was ambiguous in respect of the proposed transaction; and (iii) by agreeing to issue a Ruling when the applicant therefor was apparently in possession of private information, to wit the 1985 Ruling whereas the only public position ever put out by the Minister was contrary, namely, the 1985 opinion; and (iv) by favouring Protective Trust and Family Trust with a Ruling not equally available to others; (v) by succumbing to pressure by persons outside Revenue Canada and reversing the Department's considered position against a favourable Ruling; (vi) by issuing a Ruling with a private side deal, comprised of the undertaking and waiver thereby allowing a transaction which avoided the intent of the Act; and (vii) by neglecting or refusing to refer the matter to the Anti-Avoidance Committee under the General Anti-Avoidance Rules pursuant to section 245 of the Act, for detailed consideration and analysis in that forum, prior to rendering a decision in response to the Ruling request; and (viii) By processing and approving the Ruling with extraordinary and undue haste, in order to satisfy the schedule of the applicant for the Ruling, and thereby precluding completion of a thorough internal review of all relevant aspects of the matter; and (ix) By issuing an erroneous Ruling in law; and (x) By failing to publish the Ruling forthwith, and by failing to provide all material details of the Ruling when finally publishing same in or about March 1996; and (xi) By failing to take all reasonable steps to protect the tax base and the practical interests of the class of Plaintiffs; and (xii) Such further and other particulars of breach as may become known to the Plaintiff after Discovery. ...

  [13]            In the course of his reasons, Miller J. also considered the Minister’s alternative submission that a non-resident corporation’s tax return filed in circumstances where no taxes are payable should be treated as an information return and penalized as such pursuant to paragraph 162(7)(a) when it is filed out of time ...   [20]            Earlier in her reasons, the Tax Court Judge considered the alternative submission of the Minister who repeated the alternative argument made in Goar that, in the event that subsection 162(2.1) was not applicable, the penalty set out in subsection 162(7) is nevertheless applicable (Reasons, paras. 27 to 36). [21]            While Miller J. disposed of this argument on the basis of paragraph 162(7)(a), the Tax Court Judge addressed it by reference to paragraph 162(7)(b) which provides for a residual penalty for the failure to comply with an obligation when no other penalty is set out under the Act. ...   [31]            On the other hand, if the Tax Court Judge is thereby suggesting that the appellant should be considered to be liable on the basis that it would have been liable if it had taxes to pay, she is rewriting the provision in a manner that is not permissible ...

Obonsawin and their relationship with the Appellants and the First Nations. [3] A summary of facts substantially identical to the Statement of Agreed Facts was presented and considered in a number of other appeals decided by this Court. [4] It is therefore pointless for me, in the absence of anything new on the subject, to summarize this evidence insofar as it concerns NLS ... The appeals of some NLS employees who were placed with these same community partners have been considered by this Court in a number of prior decisions. [8]   [14]          The fresh as amended notice of appeal filed on behalf of Emil Kwandibens describes ALST and its activities as follows:   ALST is a non-profit organization that serves Canada ’s largest urban Aboriginal community. ... Canada, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877, and further considered, refined and applied to employment income by the Federal Court of Appeal in the following cases: Canada v. ...