Search - considered

To be considered personal or living expenses, one must answer yes to the first question and no to the second. ... They want me to accept that this involvement of the motorhome is so completely integrated into their business that 100% of its use, and therefore all of its expenses, should be considered business-related. ...

These cases held that expenses claimed or vehicles considered as luxuries (Bentley, Cadillac, Rolls-Royce) were unreasonable expenses. The taxpayers had not shown that in fact their business required the use of a vehicle considered to be a luxury.       ...

(admitted)   (l)         The Appellant claims that, when the worker was considered an employee, the Appellant's truck followed and supervised him and a small group of workers the entire day, supplying them with more ad bags after a few streets, whereas, when he was considered self‑employed, the truck left all the ad bags on one street corner and the worker had to distribute them. ...

If the vast majority considered that an office in-the-home was not necessary, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the decision to maintain an office in the home, was more a personal choice, rather than a requirement of the job. As per fact #25, the payor considered that the workers' hourly rate of remuneration included the workers use of a work station, at their business location.- the majority of workers stated that their only expenses were the cost of bus fare or vehicle expenses incurred to attend at the payor's place of business.- the payor was responsible for bad debts, resolved customer complaints, and was responsible for administering the pre-agreed re-testing after 36 lessons. ...

As you are aware the initial task for me was to determine whether you were considered a "worker" under the Workplace Safety & Insurance Act. ... Moreover, I considered it inappropriate for me to cross-examine Mr. Mount. ...

Each taxation year stands on its own and how the fisc considered a claim in one year is not a binding precedent for other years. ... That does not end the matter, however; it must still be considered whether the impugned provision discriminates against the appellant under the three-stage inquiry articulated in Law. [18]     Applying the analysis set out in Law, it is clear that subsection 118(5) creates a distinction in that it denies equivalent to spouse credits to payers of support while allowing such credits to taxpayers who do not pay support. [19]     Turning to the second stage of the inquiry, the distinction must be based on a personal characteristic that is an enumerated ground under section 15 of the Charter or an analogous ground. ...

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION] REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Lamarre J. [1]      At issue are appeals against assessments by which the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") decided that the Appellant was not the eligible individual for the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) in respect of the 1999 and 2000 base years for her daughter Mélody, Myriam and Sophia, in respect of the following periods:           Mélody and Sophia: from November 2000 to May 2001;           Myriam: from November 2000 to August 2001. [2]      An individual who is eligible for CCTB must meet the conditions set out at Section 122.6 of Income Tax Act (the "Act"), which reads as follows: "eligible individual"- "eligible individual" in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse or common-law partner of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse or common-law partner is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (ii) is a temporary resident within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii) is a protected person within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (iv) was determined before that time to be a member of a class defined in the Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations made under the Immigration Act, and for the purpose of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant's female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing; [3]      Sections 6301 and 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations ("Regulations")add the following:             6301. (1) For the purposes of paragraph (g) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of that definition does not apply in the circumstances where (a) the female parent of the qualified dependant declares in writing to the Minister that the male parent, with whom she resides, is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of each of the qualified dependants who reside with both parents; (b) the female parent is a qualified dependant of an eligible individual and each of them files a notice with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant; (c) there is more than one female parent of the qualified dependant who resides with the qualified dependant and each female parent files a notice with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the qualified dependant; or (d) more than one notice is filed with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant who resides with each of the persons filing the notices if such persons live at different locations. (2) For greater certainty, a person who files a notice referred to in paragraph (1)(b), (c) or (d) includes a person who is not required under subsection 122.62(3) of the Act to file such a notice.             6302. For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a) the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d) the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e) the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f) the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g) the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h) the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. [3]      Moreover, only one of the two parents may be an eligible individual for the purposes of eligibility for the CCTB. ...

  [6]      The Appellant targeted most of the elements considered in calculating the net worth. ... The facts considered in determining his net worth included an invoice which, according to Mr. ...

He considered these amounts to be business investment losses as per paragraph 39(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (the " Act "). ... The purpose of the provision appears to be the protection of guarantors by ensuring that the corporation is considered a small business corporation for the purposes of determining whether there is a business investment loss under paragraph 39(1)(c). ...

Miller's argument on the second point is that, even if the DRC was considered a tax, duty or fee, it was not imposed in respect of the consumption or use of property or a service. ... Miller argued that, because he considered this a test case, it would be inappropriate to order costs against him as it would discourage taxpayers from pursuing important issues such as this. ...