Search - considered

By questioning not the relevance or truth of the facts relied upon by the Minister but simply the weight to be attached to the various facts otherwise properly considered, the Tax Court Judge, in effect, overruled the Minister's discretionary determination without first having concluded that the determination had been made in a manner contrary to law. ... If the Minister considered all of the relevant factors in coming to his determination, and did not consider any irrelevant factors, the Tax Court Judge was not entitled to interfere with that determination merely because he would have placed greater emphasis on some facts and less on others than the Minister did.                                         ...

The history of Crown royalties, the resource allowance, and the phase-out of the resource allowance is considered in detail in several papers. ... In the Trial Division, McNair J. considered the scope of the phrase “income from production” under former sections 124.1 and 124.2 of the Act and concluded that these provisions establish their own separate scheme. ...

Lehigh Cement Limited, 2011 FCA 120, this Court considered what it means for a question to be “relevant” within the contemplation of Rule 95(1). ... In the absence of some evidence from which an inference may be drawn that some licensed manufacturers are not paying excise duty on their tobacco products at the time their products are packaged in packages similar to those of the appellant, the Judge correctly considered Grand Rivers’ requests to amount to a fishing expedition ...

Canada (Governor in Council), 2007 FCA 374, 370 N.R. 336 this Court considered the test to be applied when reviewing a decision of a judge on a motion to strike a pleading. ... Each cause of action will be considered in turn.               a.         ...

An assessment shall not be vacated or varied on appeal by reason only of any irregularity, informality, omission or error on the part of any person in the observation of any directory provision of this Act.       237.1 (1) “Definitions” – In this section,   “tax shelter” means any property in respect of which it may reasonably be considered having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the property that, if a person were to acquire an interest in the property, at the end of any particular taxation year ending within 4 years after the day on which the interest is acquired,   (a) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is (i) a loss represented to be deductible in computing income in respect of the interest in the property and expected to be incurred by or allocated to the person for the particular year or any preceding taxation year, or (ii) any other amount represented to be deductible in computing income or taxable income in respect of the interest in the property and expected to be incurred by or allocated to the person for the particular year, other than any amount included in computing a loss described in subparagraph (i), would exceed (b) the amount, if any, by which (i) the cost to the person of the interest in the property at the end of the particular year, would exceed (ii) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is the amount of any prescribed benefit that is expected to be received or enjoyed directly or indirectly in respect of the interest in the property, by the person or a person with whom the person does not deal at arm’s length but does not include property that is a flow-through share or a prescribed property.     248. (1) “Specified member” of a partnership in a fiscal period or taxation year of the partnership, as the case may be, means   (a) any member of the partnership who is a limited partner (within the meaning assigned by subsection 96(2.4)) of the partnership at any time in the period or year, and   (b) any member of the partnership, other than a member who is (i) actively engaged in those activities of the partnership business which are other than the financing of the partnership business, or (ii) carrying on a similar business as that carried on by the partnership in its taxation year, otherwise than as a member of a partnership, on a regular, continuous and substantial basis throughout that part of the period or year during which the business of the partnership is ordinarily carried on and during which he is a member of the partnership;   151. ...   [16]            He then considered the evidence in order to determine whether the appellant had met the requirements under the Act and could therefore deduct the loss and claim the tax credit ...

To determine whether revenue is rent, one looks to subsection 17.2 which provides as follows: (17.2) For the purposes of subsections (1.11) and (17), gross revenue derived in a taxation year from       (a) the right of a person or partnership, other than the owner of a property, to use or occupy the property or a part thereof, and   (b) services offered to a person or partnership that are ancillary to the use or occupation by the person or partnership of the property or the part thereof shall be considered to be rent derived in the year from the property ...       [8]                There is an exception to this deeming provision at subsection 17.3 of the Regulations: (17.3) Subsection (17.2) does not apply in any particular taxation year to property owned by     …   (b) an individual, where the property is used in a business carried on in the year by the individual in which he is personally active on a continuous basis throughout that portion of the year during which the business is ordinarily carried on; or … (17.3) Le paragraphe (17.2) ne s’applique pas, au cours d’une année d’imposition donnée, à un bien qui appartient   …   b) à un particulier, dans le cas où le bien est utilisé dans une entreprise que le particulier exploite dans l’année et dont il s’occupe personnellement de façon continue, tout au long de la partie de l’année où l’entreprise est habituellement exploitée; …   [9]                The result is that if subsection 17.3 applies, the revenue derived from an undertaking involving the use of property is not considered to be rent; if it is not rent, then the property is not one which is used principally for the purpose of producing rent and therefore, the property is not a leasing property. ...

Arora stipulated that she was an independent contractor and was not to be considered an employee of the appellant or any of its clients; that Ms. ... Arora for her part contributed her expertise, although this may not be considered as a tool (Reasons, paras. 23 to 27). ...

The most relevant may be summarized as follows: §          the trial court cannot correct a judgment it has rendered if the judgment has been the subject of a Court of Appeal judgment, and I would add, still less if it is being implemented or has been implemented, and the conclusions sought were included in those considered by the appeal (see Rule 399 of the Federal Courts Rules; Déziel v. ... Point not considered by Tax Court of Canada     [8]                Among his grounds of appeal, the appellant mentioned that subsection 31(1) of the ITA contravened his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). ...

Decisions of the CITT [17]            Dealing with what it identified as the first issue, the CITT reviewed tariff headings 56.08 and 63.05 and considered the Explanatory Notes (World Customs Organization, Explanatory Notes, 3 rd ed. ... According to the respondent, the CITT would have come to the opposite conclusion if it had considered the broader "packing" machinery category of eligible machinery in tariff item 9903.00.00. [22]            With respect to the first issue identified by the CITT, the respondent contends that the Tribunal erred in law when it held that the goods in issue were to be classified under tariff heading 63.05 on the ground that they are more specifically described by this heading, rather than by heading 56.08. ...

The record does not explain why those enquiries could not have been made and answered in time to be considered by the judges who made the orders under appeal. [4]                In an appeal, this Court cannot consider evidence that was not presented to the court below, unless leave is granted under Rule 351 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106. ... The request was considered but denied in 1995. A renewed request in 2000 was also denied. ...