Search - considered

(c)     If not, can the amount received by the appellant upon the sale of her shares be considered a deemed dividend within the meaning of subsection 84(3) of the Act?     ... B) Must the amount that she received upon the sale of her shares be considered a deemed dividend within the meaning of subsection 84(3) of the Act?   ...

The arbitration board had decided that only an amount of $36,000 was to be considered income within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act (Exhibit I-4). ... Judge Miller considered that, although they were called interest, they were not of the same nature of interest within the meaning of paragraph 12(1)(c) of the Act but they were of the same nature as the tort damages granted to the taxpayer. ...

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION] REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Tardif J. [1]      This is the appeal from the confirmation of notices of determination respecting the Canada Child Tax Benefit made by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") on February 18, 2005, in respect of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years, and respecting the goods and services tax credit for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxation years. [2]      The Minister determined that the Appellant was not the eligible individual in respect of her children, Vincent and Marise, for the period from July 2002 to January 2005 inclusive. [3]      After issuing the notices of redetermination of the Canada Child Tax Benefit in respect of the Appellant for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years on February 18, 2005, the Minister determined that the overpayments had totalled $13,303: (a) 2001 base year $4,910.00 (b) 2002 base year $5,287.00 (c) 2003 base year      (July 2004 to January 2005 inclusive)    $3,106.00 $13,303.00 [4]      In notices of redetermination of the goods and services tax credit ("GSTC") made on January 28, 2005, for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxation years, the Minister revised the annual benefit for the goods and services tax at $295.40, $330 and $342 respectively. [5]      Upon issuing the notices of redetermination of the GST credit for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxation years in respect of the Appellant on January 28, 2005, the Minister determined that the overpayments had totalled $941.10: (a) 2001 $354.60 (b) 2002 $330.00 (c) 2003 (July and October 2004, January 2005) $256.50 $941.10 [6]      On August 29, 2005, the Minister confirmed the notices of redetermination of Canada Child Tax Benefit made on February 18, 2005, for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years, and the notices of redetermination of GSTC made on January 28, 2005, for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxation years. [7]      In issuing the notices of redetermination in issue, the Minister assumed the same facts: [TRANSLATION] (a)         before the period in issue, the Appellant was always considered as the parent who was primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of her children; (b)         in November 2004, the father, Robert Gagné, filed a Child Tax Benefit claim stating that his two children, Vincent and Marise, had been living with him since September 2001; (c)         on the form referred to in the previous paragraph, the Appellant had stated, as former beneficiary, that the children Vincent and Marise had no longer been her dependents since September 2001; (d)         before taking any corrective action, the Minister telephoned the Appellant for confirmation that the two children had no longer been living with her since September 2001; (e)         thus, in early 2005, the Minister made the required adjustments against the Appellant in respect of the Canada Child Tax Benefit and goods and services tax credit (GSTC) for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years and taxation years; (f)          the Appellant had attached to her notice of objection a Superior Court judgment dated September 13, 2001, in which the Honourable Justice Ginette Piché approved an agreement signed by the two parties, who established, among other things, the following measures: (i)       custody of the minor children was assigned to Robert Gagné; (ii)      the Appellant's access to the children was defined; (iii)     the beneficiary of the family allowance benefits would remain the Appellant. [8]      The issue is whether the Minister correctly concluded that the Appellant was no longer the eligible individual in respect of her children, Vincent and Marise, for the period from July 2002 to January 2005 inclusive, for the purposes of the Canada Child Tax Benefit for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years, and for the GSTC for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxation years. [9]      The Appellant stated at the hearing that she and her former spouse had always complied to the letter with the agreement that the parties had signed and that had been confirmed by a Superior Court judgment rendered by the Honourable Justice Ginette Piché of the Superior Court on September 13, 2001 (Exhibit I-1). ... All things considered, residence implies a certain constancy, a certain regularity or else a certain permanence according to a person's usual lifestyle in relation to a given place and is to be distinguished from what might be called visits or stays for specific purposes or of a sporadic nature. ...

The assessment was based on these costs paid by the corporation, plus an amount of $28,452, which represented a 9% rate of return on $316,135, which was considered to be the corporation's investment in the residence. ... The employer is responsible for reasonably estimating the amount of such a benefit, which would normally be considered to be the fair market rent for equivalent accommodation had the employee rented from a third party, less any rent paid... ...

She therefore considered that the tax credit, which had already been disallowed because there was no admissible scientific research under the terms of section 2900 of the Regulations, should also be disallowed because the partnership had no legal existence and did not operate a business. ... Papion considered three criteria used by Revenue Canada and described in the Information Circular 86-4R2, namely:-         scientific or technological advancement;-         scientific uncertainty;-         scientific or technical content; this criterion consists of first determining what resources were used and whether they were reasonable and second, whether the resources were used to carry out scientific or technical research. [15]     Mr. ...

As for what could be considered new factual evidence, Létourneau J. ruled as followed:   [translation] Given that the other items the Appellant wants to submit in appeal refers to documents that are either already in the appeal book, not relevant, or appeared after the hearing, or prior to the hearing when the Appellant knew of their existence; it is therefore ordered that: the motion by the Appellant for authorization to present new evidence is dismissed ... Grenier's agricultural activity could be considered his main source of income ...

Thus at the end of the day all of the facts must be considered and all of the relevant criteria or tests enunciated in the case law must be applied ...   [7]      The expression "at arm's length" was considered by Bonner, T.C.J. in William J. ...

As will be seen from extracts of submissions referred to below, these amounts represented cheques (or cash withdrawals) the details for which were not provided or could not be ascertained and which the auditor considered as further personal expenditures. [10]     The following are extracts from submissions of Mr. ... He didn't give them anything other than this very, what they considered to be, unreasonably low estimate.             ...

  [28]     In Roussy, supra, Linden J.A. held as follows:   7          Hence, the duration of the time a person works is not conclusive in categorizing employment as casual; the length of time may be a factor to be considered, but a more important aspect is whether the employment is "ephemeral" or "transitory" or, if you will, unpredictable and unreliable.  ... In other words, if someone is spasmodically called upon once in a while to do a bit of work for an indeterminate time, that may be considered to be casual work.  ...

  [12]     Considering the low revenues generated by the business, the annual losses and the significance of salary costs in the annual losses, the Minister considered that it was unreasonable to believe that an arm’s length worker would be compensated at such an hourly rate for 43 hours of work per week.   ...   [19]     The Minister considered that the Payer’s low revenues and the significant annual losses he incurred starting in 1997 could not justify hiring an arm’s length worker in the same circumstances.         ...