Search - considered

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. ...

She had considered buying it from her family but was financially unable to do so. ... These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective “reasonably prudent person” standard.   ... The Appellant also considered having cheques being paid to CRL from its customers endorsed directly over to CRA, but because the bank was monitoring the company receivables so closely, the Appellant felt the bank would simply stop this practice if it were to be initiated. …   49.       ...

Counsel for the Respondent advises me that, to date, this issue has only been considered in informal procedure cases. ... Galachiuk under subsection 163(1) therefore exceeds even the maximum fine imposed for a criminal conviction for tax evasion under subsection 239(2) which is only 200% of the taxes evaded. [2]           In Chiasson Justice D’Auray stated her view that the due diligence defence could only be applied to the year in which the penalties had been assessed but, in light of the differing views on this issue among Judges on the Court and the fact that the Federal Court of Appeal had not yet had the occasion to rule on this issue, Justice D’Auray chose to give the taxpayer the benefit of the doubt and considered the taxpayer’s due diligence in the earlier year as well. [3]           There are a number of cases where the Court considered the taxpayer’s due diligence in more than one year but did not explicitly state that it was required to do so: Jack v. ...

For example, gas would not be considered part of the same pool as oil at a higher elevation, because it is physically impossible for gas to be below oil within a pool. In addition, gas or oil with specific chemical characteristics would not be considered part of a pool where the gas or oil is known to have different chemical characteristics (Appeal Book, Volume II, page 491(14)-492(21)). ... Gray's methodology was correct, he considered it unnecessary to do so. [40]      The facts are not disputed. ...

The offer was made   “… in the hope of avoiding controversy or potential litigation on behalf of minority shareholders …”, but not “… by reason of any enforceable claims … by shareholders …”. [4]   In concluding that the payment of $ $2,144 made to the holder of 640 shares was a windfall, the Court considered seven factors put forward by counsel for the Crown, and said of them that they were all relevant “… although no one of them by itself may be conclusive …”. ... These two criteria, if positive, might be considered indicia of payments in the nature of income; in the negative they are a neutral factor. ... I can see no relevance to this document, and I have not considered it in reaching my conclusion that the payments are subject to tax. ...

During the hearing, I considered the grant payment in the amount of $880,660 a capital payment for construction purposes that was not in the nature of a consideration for a lease. The evidence presented to me referred to partnership agreements to lease the premises at no cost, in consideration of payment of the excess costs. [49]     If, in terms of agreements signed between the Commission scolaire des Belles-Rivières and the city of Québec, there had been only the one entitled "Agreement", I could have considered the above-mentioned payment as merely financial assistance for the construction of premises and not as a consideration for the supply of real property, and I could have considered that it was indeed one of the usual agreements. [50]     However, in that agreement, in clause 4 entitled "Lease" the parties agreed to sign a lease contract. ...

Back home in Canada the heads of its several departments considered changes in its operating procedures which entry into the Bermuda market would require. ... Indeed it reported all of the funds received from L.D.S. as income and all of the expenses, which it considered as deductible expenses, as expenses. ... Indeed the rent and depreciation amounts which were allocated and made up some $60,000 of the 1976 charge to L.D.S. were not incurred by the plaintiff at all and therefore could not possibly be considered as reimbursed expenses because there was no outlay by the plaintiff and therefore nothing to be reimbursed. ...

Seventy five properties were purchased out of 100-150 that were considered. ... In re-direct he said that he considered all the facts, the mortgage and the non-recourse aspects of the loan agreements in making his decision that the interest claims were contingent liabilities. ... Argument of the Appellant In argument, counsel for the Appellant said that paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Act is the relevant section to be considered in determining whether the deferred interest was deductible. ...

The Queen, 2004 TCC 210, [2004] G.S.T.C. 32, wherein Bowie J. wrote that paragraph 169(4)(a) and section 3 of the Regulations cannot succeed in their purpose of protecting the fisc against both fraudulent and innocent incursions unless they are considered to be mandatory requirements and strictly enforced. The Federal Court of Appeal emphasized the words “unless they are considered to be mandatory requirements and strictly enforced” ... This is not to say that failure to actively take additional precautions will always preclude an appellant that accepted the registration number on an invoice at face value from being considered to have taken reasonable precautions to comply with the GST legislation ...