Search - considered

Recognition of an unlisted institution as a university will be considered at the request of the institution. ... The same paragraph of the bulletin seems to state as well that recognition of an unlisted institution will be considered at the request of the institution. ...

  [17]         The respondent submits that the sum of $1,050,000 was not paid to 4178092 by the appellants and that, even if that had been the case, the payment of said amount was not made by the appellants for the purpose of effecting a disposition of the shares and should therefore not be considered for the purposes of calculating the capital gain in accordance with paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Act.   ...   [30]         For the purposes of determining the proper value to be accorded to the non‑competition clause, the appraiser considered the following factors on which he had information:             (a)   state of the market and the state of the competition;           (b)   barriers to entry in relation to the shareholders’ options to compete;           (c)   clients’ mobility;           (d)   labour mobility;           (e)   shareholders’ financial ability to compete;           (f)    the shareholders’ age (54, 56 and 68 years old in 2003); and           (g)   the shareholders’ experience.   ...

While the plaintiff contends that Granville’s role in the transaction was not explicitly considered by the defendant, the onus is on the plaintiff to establish, in evidence, that the defendant’s assessment is somehow deficient. ... Moreover, even if Granville’s role was not considered in its entirety, as contended by the plaintiff, I am satisfied that the Minister has, nevertheless established the correctness of his assessment on the evidence before the Court. ...

., 80 DTC 6219, [1980] CTC 287 (FCTD) Grant, DJ:—(1) This is an appeal by the Deputy Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen from the decision of the Tax Review Board in respect of the defendant’s 1974 taxation year dated January 19, 1978, whereby that Board allowed the defendant’s appeal and directed the Minister to either delete the cumulative deduction account calculation from the notice of assessment issued for that year or if on consideration he considered some calculation was required as from June 24, 1974, to make such calculation and amend the assessment accordingly. (2) The parties agreed upon a Statement of Facts which had been signed by the solicitors for both parties, and filed that it may be treated as evidence of all the facts therein set forth. ... The tax Review Board allowed the Defendant’s appeal thereto and in its decision directed the Minister to either delete the cumulative deduction account calculation from the Notice of Assessment issued for the 1974 taxation year entirely, or if on reconsideration he considered that some calculation was required under the Income Tax Act as from June 24, 1974, to make such calculation and amend the assessment accordingly. 12. ...

This last factor is considered key in the determination.   Nature of property sold   [24]     The Hamburg property was partly residential and partly commercial real estate. ... It must be considered that Mr. Zaenker had a long history of buying and selling property; he was a real estate broker; he was very successful at reselling properties at a profit; he often mortgaged properties to the maximum extent possible. ...

On cross-examination he said that he never considered, at the time of purchase, what effect a sale would have on his income tax situation, because he did not intent to sell. ... What the purchaser says on this point must always be considered, but it may not be decisive. ...

Article 237.1- Definitions- In this section: "tax shelter" means any property in respect of which it may reasonably be considered having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the property that, if a person were to acquire an interest in the property, at the end of any particular taxation year ending within 4 years after the day on which the interest is acquired, (a)         the aggregate of all amounts each of which is: (i)          a loss represented to be deductible in computing income in respect of the interest in the property and expected to be incurred by or allocated to the person for the particular year or any preceding taxation year, or (ii)                 any other amount represented to be deductible in computing income or taxable income in respect of the interest in the property and expected to be incurred by or allocated to the person for the particular year, other than any amount included in computing a loss described in subparagraph (i),                    would exceed (b)                the amount, if any, by which                                                    (i)                   the cost to the person of the interest in the property at the end of the particular year,                                                  (ii)                   would exceed the aggregate of all amounts each of which is the amount of any prescribed benefit that is expected to be received or enjoyed directly or indirectly in respect of the interest in the property, by the person or a person with whom the person does not deal at arm's length but does not include property that is a flow-through share or a prescribed property. [6]      A second issue was raised at the hearing, i.e. whether the assessment was issued within the time prescribed by the Act. ... The opinion expressed in Exhibit I-3 warns the reader that it is possible that the tax authorities consider that the purchase of interests constitutes a conferred benefit that reduces the cost of investing and, that being the case, the proportion of the research and development expense in the partnership for the partner is higher than the cost of investing reduced by the proceeds from the disposition of the shares and that the project would be considered a tax shelter and that a number would have to be obtained. ...

The admissibility of this evidence, and the evidence derived therefrom, will have to be considered in light of s. 24(2)   of the Charter  . ... All evidence gathered subsequent to that meeting from the appellant prior to warning him that he was the subject of an investigation for the purpose of furthering the investigation or prosecution for s. 239(1) offences violates the appellant’s Charter   rights and will have to be considered in light of s. 24(2) in the new trial as ordered by Millward J. and confirmed by the Court of Appeal.   ...

  [21]          The respondent claims that the subject of the donations must be considered to be a single PUP because the appellant and Université Laval chose to define the donations as a [Translation] “collection of insects” on the charitable donation receipt issued to the appellant. ... The donated insects are thus considered to be distinct properties and are treated as such. ...

The majority considered this Court’s decision in Continental Bank Leasing Corp. v. ... All things considered, there is sufficient evidence to found a common purpose among the parties during the transition between American and Canadian control of that partnership.   23           With respect to the question of whether the business was carried on with a view to profit, it is conceded that prior to the relevant transactions, HCP was a valid and existing partnership and that it had been formed with a view to profit.  ...