Search - considered

The Appellant argues that it is discriminatory to put persons in his circumstances at a disadvantage and that such discrimination should not be allowed by the Court because it goes contra to the very purpose of the section, which is to encourage mobility to help with the move to the new employment. [26]          I understand and have considered these agreements but they cannot prevail. [27]          That accessing equity before a move would allow for the interest expense, is not a compelling reason to allow for the expense when accessing equity after a move has commenced. We considered an example during the hearing. If a loan against the Appellant's equity had been taken sometime before the move, days before cuts the example a bit thin, but say months before or a year before, and the proceeds had been used to go for a trip or to buy bonds, then, in that case, when the new residence was acquired there would be no connections between the old and the new residence. ...

The other is whether sales in the amount of C$163,182 in total for the three years were properly considered by the Minister to be domestic sales subject to GST, or were in fact export sales, and therefore zero-rated commodities on which no tax was exigible. [4]            As to the first issue, the Appellant has put itself at a considerable disadvantage by failing to comply with section 286 of the Act. ... I shall come back to the matter of this form shortly. [12]          In all there are 17 vehicles on which the Appellant did not collect GST because it considered them to be export sales: in 1996 there were two vehicles which the Appellant claims were exported to the United States and two to Germany, having a total consideration of US$29,800, which translates to C$40,528; in 1997, three vehicles to the United States aggregating US$28,500 or C$39,330; in 1998, ten vehicles to the United States for an aggregate consideration of US$56,300 or C$83,324. ...

No. 37: 32         In order for s. 56(2) to apply, four preconditions, each of which is detailed in the language of the s. 56(2) itself, must be present: (1)         the payment must be to a person other than the reassessed taxpayer; (2)         the allocation must be at the direction or with the concurrence of the reassessed taxpayer; (3)         the payment must be for the benefit of the reassessed taxpayer or for the benefit of another person whom the reassessed taxpayer wished to benefit; and (4)         the payment would have been included in the reassessed taxpayer's income if it had been received by him or her. [20]     Counsel for the appellants argued that the portion of the bonuses paid to the children that may be considered unreasonable must be attributed to the managers of the appellants in accordance with subsection 56(2) of the Act. ... The salaries or bonuses could be deducted in computing the appellants' income. [21]     Counsel further contended that the total amount of salaries and benefits that should have been included in the salaries of the appellants' managers could be deducted in computing the appellants' incomes since those expenses, even if attributed to the children, were in fact incurred for the purpose of earning the appellants' income. [22]     As a final argument, he submitted that during the investigation, the auditor had considered that the children might be entitled to a certain remuneration, even a minimal one. ...

No evidence whatsoever was presented to suggest that any steps had been taken or even considered to prevent the default. ... According to Deane Gurney, trustee in bankruptcy, such an amendment is common and is not considered to be a new claim against the bankrupt but is a revision of the existing claim. [9]           These objections relate to the assessment of the directors. [10]          The Act requires the company to file the returns and pay the tax no later than one month after the end of its reporting period. ...

Traditionally, if the worker owns or controls the assets and is responsible for their operation and maintenance, he would likely be considered an independent contractor. ...   [14]          So, in Precision, and Sagaz, “tools of the trade”, and “equipment” respectively were considered tools, as was the premises where music was taught in Hennick. ...

  [41]        In Arsenault v. le Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec, at tab 6 of the respondent's book, Judge Lareau stated the following:   [Translation]  If an error of counsel or even an accountant was regularly considered to be putting the taxpayer in a situation where he or she is unable to act, it would not free the taxpayer from his or her duty of care.... ...   [55]        In addition, given the reasons given by the applicant and the circumstances on the record, I do not believe that it would be just and equitable to grant the application for an extension of time taking into account the applicant's conduct, which can be considered negligent ...

Bérubé stated that he considered himself self-employed. He decided the days, hours and places that he wanted to work, and could work for other organizations similar to Gestion J.P.L. ... M.N.R., 2008 TCC 687, Justice Weisman once again considered the question of whether paragraph 6(g) of the Employment Insurance Regulations applied to independent contractors. ...

The Law   [3]               As both parties have alluded to in their representations, Rule 147 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) grants the Court discretion in determining costs having regard to a number of factors that may be considered in exercising such discretion found in subsection 147(3) and allows the Court to award a lump sum in lieu of or in addition to any taxed costs as set out in subsection 147(4) as well as gives the Court wide power pursuant to subsection 147(5) to award or refuse costs in respect to a particular issue or part of a proceeding or to award a percentage of costs or costs on a solicitor and client basis. ... Claim for Solicitor and Client Costs and Lump-sum Costs   [17]          Having regard to my above analyses of the factors to be considered under Rule 147(3), I cannot agree with the Appellant that this is a case in which solicitor and client costs should be awarded. ...

  [13]          In 2006, the Appellant considered selling the property and asked Ms. ... There is no evidence that a declaration of trust was ever considered, which would have supported the Appellant’s position. ...

  [38]          The next group of properties to be considered is also a single property, a detached home at 2925 Signal Hill Heights. ...   [43]          The final property to be considered is identified as 434070 2 nd St. ...