Search - considered

The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors, which may be of importance, are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk he takes, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task. ... R., [8] I considered facts similar to the appeal at bar. M was president and sole shareholder of the taxpayer. ...

However, what is really important is that the same conclusion becomes even more evident when the expression is considered in the context of paragraph 7(1)(b). ... Under such circumstances, damages even in the amount of $100,000, had the contract in fact been broken or were there a threatened breach, would, in my view, be considered very high if not excessive. ...

(b)         both of the corporations were controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by the same person or group of persons 256(5.1) Control in fact- For the purposes of this Act, where the expression "controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever," is used, a corporation shall be considered to be so controlled by another corporation, person or group of persons (in this subsection referred to as the "controller") at any time where, at that time, the controller has any direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of the corporation, except that, where the corporation and the controller are dealing with each other at arm's length and the influence is derived from a franchise, licence, lease, distribution, supply or management agreement or other similar agreement or arrangement, the main purpose of which is to govern the relationship between the corporation and the controller regarding the manner in which a business carried on by the corporation is to be conducted, the corporation shall not be considered to be controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by the controller by reason only of that agreement or arrangement. [34]     The evidence has disclosed that there were two shareholders, each of whom had an equal number of shares. ...

The Minister has assumed that the complaints were considered by a "Peer Review Committee" set up by the Medical Advisory Committee of the hospital and the appellant was permitted to make oral submissions to the Peer Review Committee. ... Such was also the finding in St-Germain. [22]     Blagdon cannot be taken to stand for the proposition that where income is generated in the course of carrying out a "profession", it will be considered to be generated in the course of carrying out a "business", and may therefore be deductible under paragraph 8(1)(a) of the Act. ...

The Queen, [1978] C.T.C. 279; 78 D.T.C. 6192; revd [1980] C.T.C. 378; 80 D.T.C. 6298, the Federal Court-Trial Division considered the meaning of the word "process" at page 289 (D.T.C. 6198-99). ... The respondent filed a partial consent to judgment allowing this deduction from tax. 2 Respondent's counsel referred the Court to reasons for judgment in other ap peals which considered the meaning of the word “structure”: Nova Construction Ltd. v. ...

Having regard to the prescriptions of ss. 97(1), it would appear that he was of the view that only half of the value of the Capri Assets could be considered as having been received by the respondent from the partnership (and presumably paid by it) because the respondent retained a 50% interest in the Capri Assets through its partnership interest (and that of its parent) and remained liable for half of the loans. I need not opine on the correctness of this view although it does seem to ignore the separate existence of the partnership for income computation purposes and in particular paragraph 96(1)(c) which requires that taxable income be computed on the basis that: (c) each partnership activity (including the ownership of property) were carried on by the partnership as a separate person, and a computation were made of the amount of      (i) each taxable capital gain and allowable capital loss of the partnership from the disposition of property, and      (ii) each income and loss of the partnership from each other source or from sources in a particular place,      for each taxation year of the partnership; c) chaque activité de la société (y compris une activité relative à la propriété de biens) était exercée par celle-ci en tant que personne distincte, et comme si était établi le montant      (i) de chaque gain en capital imposable et de chaque perte en capital déductible de la société, découlant de la disposition de biens, et      (ii) de chaque revenu et perte de la société afférents à chacune des autres sources ou à des sources situées dans un endroit donné,      pour chaque année d"imposition de la société; (emphasis added) It is unquestionable in this instance that the intention of the partners was that the whole of the Capri Assets be transferred to the partnership: It is for the partners to determine by agreement amongst themselves what shall be the property of the firm (and the quantum of their beneficial interests therein inter se) and what shall be the separate property of one or more of them... 8 (emphasis added) Since the whole of the Capri Assets were transferred to the partnership, 9 it follows in my view that the whole of their value must also be considered as having been paid by the partnership and received by the respondent for purposes of ss. 97(1). ...

The chartered appraisal firm expressed the considered opinion that as of April 28, 2008, the market value appraisal of the building to be built was $532,000. ... In such a context, it should be considered that the purchase and subsequent sale of the land amounted at the very least to an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. ...

Notwithstanding subsection 2(2), the taxable income for a taxation year of an individual who is resident in Canada throughout part of the year and non-resident throughout another part of the year is the amount, if any, by which (a) the amount that would be the individual's income for the year if the individual had no income or losses, for the part of the year throughout which the individual was non-resident, other than (i) income or losses described in paragraphs 115(1)(a) to (c), and (ii) income that would have been included in the individual's taxable income earned in Canada for the year under subparagraph 115(1)(a)(v) if the part of the year throughout which the individual was non-resident were the whole taxation year, exceeds the total of (b) the deductions permitted by subsection 111(1) and, to the extent that they relate to amounts included in computing the amount determined under paragraph (a), the deductions permitted by any of paragraphs 110(1)(d) to (d.2) and (f), and (c) any other deduction permitted for the purpose of computing taxable income to the extent that (i) it can reasonably be considered to be applicable to the part of the year throughout which the individual was resident in Canada, or (ii) if all or substantially all of the individual's income for the part of the year throughout which the individual was non-resident is included in the amount determined under paragraph (a), it can reasonably be considered to be applicable to that part of the year. [27]     Section 114 provides for a determination of the taxable income of a part-time resident in three steps. [28]     First the taxpayer computes the amount described in paragraph (a) which is a modification of the computation of income in Division B. [29]     Division B is titled "Computation of Income" and is comprised of a number of deductions and inclusions to be taken into account in the computation of income in sections 3 to 108 of the Act. ...

Consequently, as a general rule, a dividend payment cannot reasonably be considered a benefit diverted from a taxpayer to a third party within the contemplation of subsection 56(2). ... The application of subsection 56(2) was considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in Outerbridge Estate v. ...

As already mentioned, the practice followed by appellant is one adopted by the others brewers in Manitoba, and followed by all as something considered by them, not merely as advisable, but as obligatory, to increase, or at least sustain, the volume of their sales. Being considered thus in a commercial sense, I think it should be similarly held for the purposes of the Act. ...