Search - considered

"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. ...

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. ...

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. ...

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. ...

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. ...

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. ...

  [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 ...

  [22]     The Federal Court of Appeal considered a similar situation in Rockwood v. ...   [25]     It must be noted that, in exercising his discretion, the Minister considered a number of factors, some of which are:             1.       ...

Beyond these amounts, which have been allowed (see table above), I do not allow the additional amounts sought by the Appellant. [38]     The final issue is whether a proportion of a painting's purchase price of $13,104 can be considered a business expense. ... Class 8 is considered the "catch-all" class because it covers tangible capital property that is not specifically excluded by the exceptions listed under Class 8 or by Regulation 1102. ...

And why aren't they considered part of the ship's crew?   A.        ...   [16]     In paragraphs 14 and 15 above, I considered only the test of "control". ...