Search - considered

QCH made computers available to all of its workers (both those it considered employees and those it considered independent contractors) in its main office but Ms. ...

The appellant’s claim is neither plausible nor reasonable. [6]              The auditor therefore considered that the cash deposits were unreported income including taxes. ... Conclusion [25]         Having considered all the evidence, I am not persuaded that the appellant has met its burden of showing that the Minister’s assumptions, on which the Minister proceeded in making the assessment, are without merit in fact or in law. [26]         For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. ...

GAAR [16]         The Respondent asserts that the Appellant entered into a series of transactions that could “ reasonably be considered to have resulted directly or indirectly in an [sic] misuse of subsections 37(6.1), 111(5), 111(5.1), 127(9) and 127(9.1), and paragraphs 37(1)(h) and 111(1)(a) or an abuse having regard to the provisions of the Act read as a whole relating to the transfer of losses and control ” and thus that GAAR should apply to deny the tax benefits claimed by the Appellant [14]. At paragraph 18 of the Reply, the Respondent highlights the existence of certain policies and provisions of the Act which she says have been misused or abused: (a)                 the general policy of the Act is to prohibit the transfer of losses between arm’s length parties, subject to certain express and permissive exceptions; (b)                subsection 111(5) (and also the related provisions in respect of the Tax Attributes under subsections 111(4), 111(5.1), 37(6.1) and 127(9.1) of the Act) is an anti-avoidance provision designed to prevent arm’s length loss trading from an unrelated business and represents an exception to the general policy of the Act; (c)                subsection 256(8) is an anti-avoidance provision designed to ensure the acquisition of control rules apply where effective control of a corporation was been acquired; and (d)               subsection 251(5)(b) is one of a number of sections of the Act which attempts to ensure that a person with effective control of a corporation will be considered to control the corporation. [17]         The Appellant asserts that none of the policies highlighted by the Respondent is applicable to its situation. ...

That conclusion provides a very strong indication that only one writer is involved and the possibility that another writer may be considered is negligible. ... Binette concluded that there is a high likelihood of a match, that is, there is a good indication that only one writer is involved, and the possibility that another writer may be considered is negligible. ...

., who perform the same type of work as that performed by the workers and the majority of whom are also part‑time employees, are considered by their employer as employees. [35]         According to counsel for the appellants, Mr. ... However, control over the results of the work to be performed under a contract was exercised by the retailer’s representative onsite. [40]         The workers’ intention to be considered self‑employed is not a relevant factor in this case because the relationships with Mr.  ...

Rabinovitch’s desire to minimize his client’s taxes and the uncertainty in tax law during 1982, I am of the view that the retroactive adjustments to accounts is not a valid tax planning scheme, and I must therefore dismiss this appeal. [25]         It is possible to lose a tax benefit if an operation is considered incomplete or ineffective because a person neglected to comply with indispensible legal formalities. ... Zaddoug should have considered the historic data in this case. The rent billed and reported by the appellants was never $117,600 in all the previous years. ...

It is the Appellant’s position that the Minister can only make such a determination if the related employee wishes to be considered an insurable person under the Act. The Minister cannot make the determination if the related employee does not wish to be considered an insurable person under the Act. [36]         Counsel for the Appellant argued that this is consistent with the scheme of the Act and would not result in employees abusing the system since only employees who pay premiums can collect benefits. [37]         Paragraph 90(1)(a) allows an employee, an employer and the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (the “Commission”) to request an officer of the CRA authorized by the Minister to make a ruling on whether an employment is insurable. [38]         Under paragraph 5(1)(a), insurable employment is employment in Canada under an express or implied contract of service, written or oral. ...

  [7]              In support of its claims, the appellant relies on many elements that were not considered by the Minister, including the establishment profile, i.e.:   —    restaurant is in a single-purpose building; —    main clientele is made up of high school students; —    busy periods are from September to December and from April to June; —    restaurant capacity is 52 seats; —    the building is old and in need of repairs and renovations; —    the restaurant is not part of the Belle Province chain; and —    a competing restaurant, McDonald's, is nearby.   ... As a result, purchases of sliced bread were not considered.   [21]         The auditor also confirmed that the appellant did not provide purchase invoices from its suppliers. ...

Regrettably, this fact was either not considered or not brought to Mattamy’s attention as an impediment to you receiving the rebate at time of closing. ... Sharp and her parents should be considered in the same light, as being home buyers for whom the rebate is intended. ...

As noted in Royal Winnipeg Ballet at para. 64, the relevant factors must be considered “in the light of” the parties’ intent. ... The reply to the notice of appeal states that the Minister assumed that the worker considered himself to be an employee. [23]         Based on the testimony before me, I am satisfied that the worker was aware of the fact that the appellant intended a self-employment arrangement. [24]         The Minister also included in the assumptions that the worker reported what he received from the appellant as “other employment income” on his 2010 income tax return and that the worker did not claim any expenses in his return. ...