Search - considered

I noted that this had gone on for about ten years and that I considered the audits and demands for payment of moneys not owing, constituted harassment. ... McCaffrey, had been applied towards her 1991 taxation year, and accordingly, was still considered to be outstanding. ...

It is concerned with paragraph 12(1)(o) of the Income Tax Act as that provision applied during the period November 18, 1974 to May 25, 1976. 12. (1) There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from a business or property such of the following amounts as are applicable: (o) any amount (other than an amount referred to in paragraph 18(1)(m), paid or payable by the taxpayer, or a prescribed amount) that became receivable in the year by virtue of an obligation imposed by statute or a contractual obligation substituted for an obligation imposed by statute by (i) Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, (ii) an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or (iii) a corporation, commission or association that is controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province or by an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province as a royalty or an equivalent amount, tax (other than a tax or portion thereof that may reasonably be considered to be a municipal or school tax levied for the purpose of providing services in the immediate area of the property of the taxpayer), rental, bonus, levy or otherwise or as an amount, however described, that may reasonably be regarded as being in lieu of a royalty or an equivalent amount, tax, rental, bonus, levy or other amount (whether such royalty or equivalent amount, tax, rental, bonus, levy or other amount is receivable pursuant to any other Act or a contract) that may reasonably be regarded as being in relation to (iv) the acquisition, development or ownership by a taxpayer of a Canadian resource property or a property that would have been a Canadian resource property if it had been acquired after 1971, or (v) the production in Canada of (A) petroleum, natural gas or related hydrocarbons, or (B) metal or industrial minerals to any stage that is not beyond the prime metal stage or its equivalent from an oil or gas well or mineral resource situated on property in Canada from which the taxpayer had, at the time of such production, a right to take or remove petroleum, natural gas or related hydrocarbons or a right to take or remove metal or industrial minerals. ... In Phillips and Taylor v City of Sault Ste Marie, [1954] S.C.R. 404, a provincial tax on the tenant of land belonging to the Crown was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. ...

Judge's Note: These cases were considered directly relevant to the facts of these appeals, the others were only of a general interest on the question of capital or income. ... What should be considered is what is the nature of the payment, rather than is it an appropriate treatment that it be written over thirty years or to be deducted in one year. ...

Although the overriding intent may be looked at, counsel submitted that the particular intent with respect to the specific provision must also be considered. ... "Modification" is considered to be merely a partial alteration of a pre-existing thing. ...

Canada, [1997] 1 F.C. 368, 96 DTC 6531, [1996] 3 C.T.C. 295, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the deductibility of a lump sum payment received by a Canadian resident taxpayer on the winding up of a pension fund operated by his former US employer. ... It confirms that a participant in the Plan is entitled to recover his or her investment in the Plan “tax-free”. [18] Each benefit payment includes a portion that is taxable and a portion that is non-taxable, the amount of those portions depending on how the investment in the Plan is calculated and allocated to each benefit payment. [19] The method for calculating the portion of a benefit payment that is considered a return of investment is referred to as the “Simplified General Rule” [20] or “Simplified Method”. ...

Olney’s payment to her personal trainer to be considered medical expenses: subparagraphs 118.2(2)(l.9) and 118.2(2)(b.1) of the Act. [24]         Dealing first with subparagraph 118.2(2)(b.1) of the Act, as indicated in the earlier discussion of attendant care, this implies assistance from an individual and the assistance must be in the form of care provided to Ms.  ... Olney could not do herself, that is integral to her living a normal life should not also be considered attendant care. ...

It is only the predominant elements that are taken into account in applying the inclusions and exclusions in the “financial service” definition. [49]            In this case, a question arises as to what elements the judge considered to be the predominant elements. ... It is not clear which of these the judge considered as the predominant elements. [50]            When there is an ambiguity in reasons, the meaning that is to be preferred is the one that is harmonious with the reasons as a whole. ...

Furthermore, at all material times, the appellant acted only in his capacity as solicitor for Affordable. [19] The appellant submits, in the alternative, that if he were to be considered a director of Affordable, he resigned as a director on October 4, 1994, which was prior to the date when Affordable was required to remit the source deductions at issue in the assessment under appeal (pursuant to section 108 of the Income Tax Regulations, the deadline for remitting the source deductions for September 1994 was October 15, 1994). The appellant argues that he cannot, therefore, be liable for the unremitted source deductions. [20] The appellant further submits, in the alternative, that if he were to be considered a director of Affordable, he exercised the degree of care, diligence and skill to prevent Affordable’s failure to remit source deductions that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in comparable circumstances. ...

(b) an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year, pursuant to a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or pursuant to a written agreement, as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if he was living apart from, and was separated pursuant to a divorce, judicial separation or written separation agreement from, his spouse or former spouse to whom he was required to make the payment at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year; (c) an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year, pursuant to an order of a competent tribunal, as an allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if he was living apart from his spouse or former spouse to whom he was required to make the payment at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year; Section 60.1 reads in part as follows: 60.1(1) Where a decree, order, judgment or written agreement described in paragraph 60(b) or (c), or any variation thereof, provides for the periodic payment of an amount by a taxpayer (a) to a person who is (i) the taxpayer's spouse or former spouse... the amount or any part thereof, when paid, shall be deemed for the purpose of paragraphs 60(b) and (c) to have been paid to and received by that person. (2) For the purposes of paragraphs 60(b) and (c), the amount determined by the formula A – B where A is the total of all amounts each of which is an amount (other than an amount to which paragraph 60(b) or (c) otherwise applies) paid by a taxpayer in a taxation year, under a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or under a written agreement, in respect of an expense... incurred in the year or the preceding taxation year for maintenance of a person who is (a) the taxpayer's spouse or former spouse,... or for the maintenance of children in the person's custody or both the person and those children if, at the time the expense was incurred and throughout the remainder of the year, the taxpayer was living separate and apart from that person, and B [not applicable] shall, where the decree, order, judgment or written agreement, as the case may be, provides that this subsection and subsection 56.1(2) shall apply to any payment made thereunder, be deemed to be an amount paid by the taxpayer and received by that person as an allowance payable on a periodic basis. (3) For the purposes of this section and section 60, where a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or a written agreement made at any time in a taxation year provides that an amount paid before that time and in the year or the preceding taxation year is to be considered to have been paid and received thereunder, the amount shall be deemed to have been paid thereunder. [7] The Respondent agrees that for the $16,900 to be deductible by the Appellant, the order of the Divisional Court must be deemed to have been made nunc pro tunc, or in other words be deemed retroactive. ... There was no clear stipulation in the agreement that the previous payments were to be considered as having been paid and received under the agreement pursuant to subsection 60.1(3) of the Act. ...

[27] The criteria to be considered were reiterated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Attorney General of Canada v. ... Four criteria are to be considered for the purpose of distinguishing between a contract of employment and a contract for services. ...