Search - considered

Filter by Type:

Results 8811 - 8820 of 14729 for considered
TCC

Cogema Resources Inc. v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 750

. – any amount (other than a prescribed amount) paid or payable by virtue of an obligation imposed by statute or a contractual obligation substituted for an obligation imposed by statute to             (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 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, tax (other than a tax or portion of a tax that may reasonably be considered to be a municipal or school tax), lease rental or bonus or as an amount, however described, that may reasonably be regarded as being in lieu of any such amount, and that may reasonably be regarded as being in relation to   (iv)       the acquisition, development or ownership of a Canadian resource property, or   (v)        the production in Canada of …   (B)       metal, minerals (other than iron or petroleum or related hydrocarbons) or coal from a mineral resource in Canada to any stage that is not beyond the prime metal stage or its equivalent, …   [5]      The deductions claimed by Cogema for surcharges paid under the Saskatchewan Act were:                                1994            $2,020,888                                1995            $1,612,637                                1996            $1,879,699   They were paid pursuant to section 13.1 of the Saskatchewan Act, which in those years read in part:   13.1     In addition to any tax payable pursuant to subsection 13(1), a resource corporation shall, with respect to each of its fiscal years, pay a tax in an amount equal to the positive difference between:               (a)        the aggregate of: …   (iii)       if a fiscal year or portion of a fiscal year commences on or after April 1, 1993, 3.6% of the resource corporation's value of resource sales in that fiscal year or portion of that fiscal year; and   (b)        the tax payable, if any, by the resource corporation pursuant to this Act determined in accordance with subsection 13(1) for the corresponding fiscal year mentioned in clause (a) ... The second question is whether the payments may reasonably be considered to relate to the exercise of Mobil's right to remove the oil from the ground. ...
TCC

Robichaud c. La Reine, 2004 TCC 661

[2]      To make and justify the reassessments in question, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") assumed the following facts: (a)         in his income tax return for the 1989 taxation year, the Appellant claimed, as a charitable donations credit, an amount of $2,089 with respect to the property (stamps) purportedly "given" to the Fondation Amérindienne Tecumseh; (b)         in his income tax return for the 1990 taxation year, the Appellant claimed, as a charitable donations credit, an amount of $5,190 with respect to the property (stamps) purportedly "given" to the Fondation Amérindienne Tecumseh; (c)         in his income tax return for the 1991 taxation year, the Appellant claimed, as a charitable donations credit, an amount of $6,870 with respect to the property (stamps) purportedly "given" to the Fondation Amérindienne Tecumseh; (d)         the Appellant did not genuinely donate of any of that property in 1989, 1990 or 1991; (e)         the Appellant did not have animus donandi to give that property to the Fondation Amérindienne Tecumseh; (f)          the Appellant bought a tax deduction each year; (g)         the Appellant only sought to obtain an undue tax advantage for the 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxation years since each year the transaction was conditional upon receiving a receipt for an amount larger than the amount he had to spend to obtain it; (h)         in addition, the value declared by the Appellant for 1989, 1990 and 1991 for the property in question, of which the description provided in the documents submitted by the Appellant was not admitted, was not attributed by an independent expert and was not, in any case, the fair market value of the property in question; (i)          the receipts submitted by the Appellant do not comply with section 3501 of the Income Tax Regulations; (j)          the Appellant is therefore not entitled, for 1989, 1990 and 1991, to any charitable donations credit with regard to the property in question; (k)         the Appellant did not fill in Schedule 3 on his income tax returns concerning the gains realized on the disposition of listed personal property; (l)          the Appellant, knowingly or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, made, participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of a false statement or omission in his income tax returns for the 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxation years and as a result the income tax that would have been payable if it had been established based on the information provided in his returns would have been $503.96, $1,312.54 and $1,751.90 less, respectively, than the income tax actually payable for the 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxation years; (no confirmation in the file) (m)        the penalties accordingly imposed on the Appellant under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act amount to 50% of that tax differential, namely, $251.98, $656.27 and $875.95, respectively, for the 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxation years. [3]      The Appellant admitted the statements in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (k); he denied all the others, specifically, (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (l), and (m). [4]      Only the Appellant, a chartered accountant (CA), testified in support of his appeal. [5]      The Appellant, who has been truly fond of stamps since a very young age, had gathered a significant number of them over the years, which he considered to be a collection. Many members of his family had made it their duty to gather stamps for him; with time and the help of his family and friends, he had accumulated so many that he considered himself an amateur stamp collector. [6]      In parallel with this hobby, he was interested in tracing his ancestors to build his family tree; when he learned that some of his ancestors were of Amerindian origin, he became interested in that community and wanted to help them. [7]      Due to a lack of time and interest, and with his fondness for stamps waning, he apparently then decided to help the Fondation Amérindienne Tecumseh by donating part of his collection to the foundation in three different donations during 1989, 1990 and 1991. [8]      In consideration for the donations to the Fondation Amérindienne Tecumseh, he received three receipts in the amounts of $2,089.70, $5,189.81 and $6,870. ...
TCC

Baxter v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 636

Alberta, [1989] AJ No. 755 (CA) at p. 10 (QL) as follows:       The scope of questions which may be properly asked in examination for discovery has been considered in several reported decisions. ... " The question of the scope of examination for discovery was also considered in Drake v. ...
TCC

Sevy v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 634

"qualified farm property" of an individual (...) at any particular time means a property owned at that time by the individual,...that is (a)         real property that was used by             (i)          the individual,            ... in the course of carrying on the business of farming in Canada and, for the purpose of this paragraph, property will not be considered to have been used in the course of carrying on the business of farming in Canada unless (vii)       where the property is a property last acquired by the individual or partnership before June 18, 1987, or after June 17, 1987... the property... was used by the individual... principally in the course of carrying on the business of farming in Canada (A)        in the year the property was disposed of by the individual, or (B)        in at least 5 years during which the property was owned by the individual... ... I see it more in that light, than as a whole new separate venture, as the Respondent suggests. [19]     Having reached the conclusion there was only one business of farming being carried on, I turn to the second aspect of the Respondent's argument; that is, even if the Penticton property is considered part of Mr. ...
TCC

Hyndman v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 641

He later invested the money with Canada Trust and never considered the tax implications nor did he discuss the matter with his wife. ... Such inaction could be considered to be gross negligence by some but it is not that conduct that needs to be assessed. ...
TCC

Paré c. La Reine, 2003 TCC 869 (Informal Procedure)

Paré is not considered support within the meaning of subsection 56.1(4) of the Act unless it was paid under the terms of an order or written agreement. ... These words, in my opinion, must be interpreted strictly and the words "written agreement" in a context which includes a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal must, of necessity, mean a formal agreement between the parties concerned. [9]      As it is expressly set out that the Summary is not binding on the parties, it cannot be considered a formal agreement of the type required by the Act. [10]     While it may be that a verbal agreement existed and was proven, it nonetheless remains that it is only a verbal agreement. ...
TCC

Barrie v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 37

Not one of the factors summarized by Rothstein, J.A. in Rich v.Canada [5], was seriously considered by Mr. ... With respect to loans to 128 Ltd. and 134 Inc., I doubt whether he considered the realistic chances of earning interest on the loans. ...
TCC

McKeating v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 99 (Informal Procedure)

On the other hand, it seems Westinghouse considered the Appellant as covered under the terms of a sale agreement with a particular purchaser referred to by Westinghouse as "Crouse-Hinds". [3] [9]      On refusing to accommodate the Appellant with work after being cut off disability, Westinghouse advised the Appellant he could commence payments out of his pension as he was then eligible for retirement, having reached age 55. ... Penalties were assessed in 1999 under subsection 163(1) because the Minister asserted that the Appellant failed to report his pension income in 1999 and the two preceding years. [8] While I take Respondent counsel's concession on penalties to be a reflection of the Minister's acceptance that an application for fairness was considered and that a decision to waive penalties had been made, I am in no position to make an order on that basis. ...
TCC

Guenette v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 111 (Informal Procedure)

There may be deducted in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year such of the following amounts as are applicable:... 4 60(o.1) 3 60(o.1)- Legal expenses- the amount, if any, by which the lesser of (i)          the total of all legal expenses (other than those relating to a division or settlement of property arising out of, or on a breakdown of, a marriage) paid by the taxpayer in the year or in any of the 7 preceding taxation years to collect or establish a right to an amount of             (A) a benefit under a pension fund or plan (other than a benefit under the Canada Pension Plan or a provincial pension plan as defined in section 3 of the Act) in respect of the employment of the taxpayer or a deceased individual of whom the taxpayer was a dependant, relation or legal representative, or             (B) a retiring allowance of the taxpayer or a deceased individual of whom the taxpayer was a dependant, relation or legal representative, and (ii)         the amount, if any, by which the total of all amounts each of which is             (A) an amount described in clause (i)(A) or (B)             (I)         that is received after 1985, (II)        in respect of which legal expenses described in subparagraph (i) were paid. and (III)       that is included in computing the income of the taxpayer for the year or a preceding taxation year, or (B) an amount included in computing the income of the taxpayer under paragraph 56(1)(l.1) for the year or a preceding taxation year, exceeds the total of all amounts each of which is an amount deducted under paragraph (j), (j.01), (j.1) or (j.2) in computing the income of the taxpayer for the year or a preceding taxation year, to the extent that the amount may reasonably be considered to have been deductible as a consequence of the receipt of an amount referred to in clause (A), exceeds (iii)        the portion of the total described in subparagraph (i) in respect of the taxpayer that may reasonably be considered to have been deductible under this paragraph in computing the income of the taxpayer for a preceding taxation year. [5]      The expression "retiring allowance" is defined in subsection 248(1) as follows: "retiring allowance" means an amount (other than a superannuation or pension benefit, an amount received as a consequence of the death of an employee or a benefit described in subparagraph 6(1)(a)(iv)) received (a)         on or after retirement of a taxpayer from an office or employment in recognition of the taxpayer's long service, or (b)         in respect of a loss of an office or employment of a taxpayer, whether or not received as, on account or in lieu of payment of, damages or pursuant to an order or judgment of a competent tribunal, by the taxpayer or, after the taxpayer's death, by a dependant or a relation of the taxpayer or by the legal representative of the taxpayer. ...
TCC

Biron v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 154 (Informal Procedure)

  [26]     Counsel for the respondent does not deny that the Appellant has a medical problem, but submits that no basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted and that the wearing of the breathing mask cannot be considered a therapy that is both essential to sustain a vital function of the Appellant and administered at least three times each week for a total duration averaging 14 hours a week ... Conclusion   [37]     Section 118.4 of the Act reads as follows:   118.4. (1) Nature of impairment — For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a)        an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b)        an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c)        a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding oneself or dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; (d)        for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living; and (e)        feeding oneself does not include (i) any of the activities of identifying, finding, shopping for or otherwise procuring food, or (ii) the activity of preparing food to the extent that the time associated with the activity would not have been necessary in the absence of a dietary restriction or regime; and (f)        dressing oneself does not include any of the activities of identifying, finding, shopping for or otherwise procuring clothing ...

Pages