Search - considered

" and does not seem to have paid interest on this loan; (q)         The alleged loan arrangements were offered only in return for the purchase of shares in 9066-1000 Québec Inc. using the Appellant's RRSP; (r)         As a result of the strategy mentioned above, the Appellant was able to withdraw her RRSP without paying taxes; (s)         According to the Appellant, she did not notify "Laurentian Trust" that she had provided her RRSP as a loan guarantee and this explains why the Trust did not issue a T4RSP to her for the 1998 taxation year; (t)          The fair market value (FMV) of the Appellant's RRSP was $20,775 when she provided her RRSP as a guarantee for the $16,620 loan; (u)         the Minister therefore added the full amount of $20,775 to Appellant's total income for the 1998 taxation year; (v)         the Minister also considered applying the general anti-avoidance rule as an alternative position. [3]      The question at issue is fully articulated at paragraph 4 of the Amended Reply to the Notice of Appeal: [TRANSLATION] The question at issue involves determining whether the Minister is justified in adding the amount of $20,775 to the Appellant's income for the 1998 taxation year. [4]      The Appellant wanted to become financially independent. ... Judge Bowman (as he then was) considered the jurisdiction of this Court with respect to crediting an Appellant for source deductions withheld but not remitted by the employer and he stated at paragraph 14: Even if I had concluded differently it would not have been within the power of this court to declare that in determining the balance owing to the Government of Canada by Mr. ... Tremblay has set up businesses that shared accounting data, which were either totally fictitious or grossly exaggerated. [67]     In fact, over and above the various appearances and qualifications of certain transactions, RRSP owners such as the Appellant obtained funds from their RRSPs in exchange for an obscene commission. [68]     Although the Appellant is sympathetic and although she may possibly have been the innocent victim of an actual professional swindle, the appeal must be dismissed because the assessment is correct. [69]     To arrive at this conclusion, the Respondent conducted a very meticulous analysis of the facts and considered all the relevant legislative provisions. ...

Mr Lemay already had his library and much of his office equipment when Mr Poulin joined the partnership and while additions and replacements were of course made from year to year and paid for out of the partnership account, Mr Lemay, according to his evidence, apparently considered that these expenditures should not be capitalized in any way but were normal current expenses, especially as many of the books purchased were the current issues of taxation and other services which became obsolete each year when replaced by the following year’s editions. ... When pressed in giving evidence for an indication as to how he reached the figure of $20,000 he was asking for he stated that this represented approximately what it cost him to live for a year according to his usual standards after taking into account the net amounts available to him in previous years after payment of income tax on same and that he wanted sufficient security to give him time to get reestablished in a law practice on his own.* [6] Mr Lemay, for his part, when testifying stated that although he did not wish to introduce any elements of personal animosity into the litigation he had considered at the time that it was worth $20,000 to him to be free of the troubles (which by implication his association with Mr Poulin were causing him). ... In the present case, on the contrary, Brett and Ouellette contend that there never was a general partnership entitling Blauer to share in the fees earned in the Boucherville tunnel and Sherbrooke projects and while they, in their own minds, may have based the amount to be paid to him as a settlement on dissolution of the partnership and for withdrawal of the various proceedings he had laid, on an amount equal to what they considered his share of the profits on these two projects would amount to, it is clear that the settlement was not based on an accounting of the partnership, treating it as a general partnership, up to the date of the dissolution, resulting in a payment to Blauer of his share in the partnership income to this date, for 1 *This figure was 35%. 2 +The agreement of the three partners with Mr Gagnon dated January 5, 1967, states in paragraph 12D (translated): “The price of the partnership shares transferred to the new partner by the partners prorated on the basis of those they hold will be established by taking into account all the assets of the partnership including physical assets; accounts receivable and work in progress.” ...

They always considered the property in their respective trusts as their own and dealt with it as their own. ... She referred to the three requirements stated in Revenue Canada’s Technical News, supra, for a trust to be considered a bare trust. ... The question now remains whether those losses should be reported by the husband’s trust and the wife’s trust or whether these trusts should be considered bare trusts in respect of the Partnership interest, thus allowing the losses to flow through to the appellant and his wife personally. ...

The trip was not a holiday to Lowe and was not considered by Wellington to be a ’perk’ to Lowe. ... Lowe considered his wife’s presence in New Orleans as “part of my job”. ... When the time spent in New Orleans by the appellant on the employer’s business is considered, it can be readily seen that the appellant had precious little time left over for personal pleasure. ...

He conceded that there was no obligation placed upon the recipients of the so- called “allowance" to actually purchase another home in order to qualify, but he had in fact purchased a residence and he maintained that the amount in question could not be considered an allowance as the taxpayer had, as anticipated, increased mortgage costs. ... With these facts in mind, I restate the issue to be resolved: should the sum paid to the taxpayer in the 1976 taxation year be considered other remuneration, or a benefit arising by reason of an office or employment, or, yet, an allowance for unexempted personal or living expenses or for any other purpose and consequently be included in his income for that year? ... The Ransom case, supra, also emphasized a similar connection between the rendering of service and the payment of the amount before the compensation was to be considered income from an office or employment. ...

  [33]            This age-based distinction is one of the many distinctions contained in the Act, including in: ·         section 63: the deduction for child care expenses for children under the age of 16; ·         paragraph 118(1)(b.1): the child amount for children under the age of 18; ·         paragraph 118(1)(c.1): the caregiver amount, for which the individual has attained the age of 18 years or the age of 65 years; ·         paragraph 118(1)(d): the credit for dependants 18 years old and over; ·         subsection 118(2): the age credit for individuals 65 years old and over; ·         subsection 118.01(2): the adoption expense tax credit, for which the “eligible child” has not attained the age of 18 years; ·         subsection 118.02(2): the transit pass tax credit, for which a child of the individual who has not, during the taxation year, attained the age of 19 years is considered to be a “qualifying relation”; ·         subsection 118.03(2): the child fitness tax credit for children under 16 years of age, or under 18 years of age where the credit for mental or physical impairment is claimed under section 118.3; ·         section 122.6: the Canada Child Tax Benefit, for which a “qualified dependant” has not attained the age of 18 years; ·         section 122.7: the Working Income Tax Benefit, for which an “eligible individual” was 19 years of age or older and an “eligible dependant” was under the age of 19 years ... Mercier (T.D.), [1997] 1 F.C. 560 [Mercier]:   At this point, the specific characteristics of the Income Tax Act should be considered. ... [Emphasis added]     [38]            As one can read at paragraph 46 of Mercier, at the same time, Parliament also chose  . . . to make the system more consistent and harmonize it with other legislative provisions in order to preclude, for example, a person being considered independent under certain legislative provisions but dependent under others. ...

It is unnecessary to consider in any detail the terms of this arrangement other than to say that the services to be rendered by the respondent in the operation of the school were to be paid for on specified terms, and that the agreement was to continue until March 1, 1943, unless earlier terminated by the Crown, either by reason of the cessation of hostilities or for any other reason for which it should be considered that the school was unnecessary. ... If the company had succeeded in obtaining letters patent which prohibited the pay- ment of dividends completely and, in addition, the retention of any earned income by the company, different considerations, which need not here be considered, would arise. ... In computing its income for the taxation year 1949 it claimed as an allowance under Section 1201 of the Income Tax Regulations the sum of $796,023.22, being one-third of $2,388,069.65, which it considered as net profits for the year reasonably attributable to the production of oil and gas from the wells operated by it at a profit. ...

C.R. 170, considered; Roper v. Minister of National Revenue, 77 DTC 5408; The Queen v. ... The fact that they were subject to some slight variations foreseen by the judgment due to variable tax rates does not in my view prevent them from being considered as predetermined sums of money within the meaning of the Pascoe case. ... The fact that this can take place does not prevent them from being considered as fixed predetermined payments for the taxation years in question during which the payments were made pursuant to the divorce order. ...

Is this revenue to be considered income or capital gains. For the purposes of this hearing the witnesses were excluded and so did not have the opportunity to hear the others’ evidence. ... In the present instance an apartment building was erected for the appellant between 1958 and 1960 and wa sold in 1961 for a profit of $78,403 which the Minister sought to tax as arising from an adventure in the nature of trade but which the appellant considered a capital gain resulting from the sale of the property intended as an investment. ... With respect, it is my considered opinion that the pleading is adequate for the purpose intended and gives sufficient information to place the onus on the taxpayer to disprove the factual assumptions upon which the assessment was made. ...

Desrochers says the possibility of selling the property (except for the piece on the outskirts of the city) was never considered. ... Justice Wright of the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan) who was a director and the secretary of the plaintiff company, participated in several of the meetings and confirms Desrochers' evidence that the possibility of selling the downtown properties was never considered and that the investors were all interested in a long-term investment. ... I also understand that it is not sufficient for the purpose of characterizing the gain as income to show that a purchaser merely considered the possibility of a resale at the time of the acquisition of the property, but it must be shown that the resale or the possibility of a resale was a motivating factor which lead to the acquisition. ...