Search - considered

Other documents submitted and the exchange of telexes would indicate that if indeed $33,000 had been received by Expofoods (UK) it was not considered there as “income” of any description. Certainly if it was considered a deductible expense to the appellant in Canada, setting it off against some “balance” owing from Expofoods (Canada) would not have the effect of including it as part of income in UK — an essential ingredient if the ‘‘one entity” tax proposition of Mr Blauer and Mr Leiter is to be entertained. ...

Schreider had personally looked at the property, considered the risk, the type of mortgage, the interest rate, the rentals available and recommended that the appellant should consider advancing funds to the client. ... In deciding this issue the Court considered other cases relied upon by the appellant, including The Queen v Ensite Limited, [1983] CTC 296; 83 DTC 5315; The Queen v Marsh & McLennan Limited, [1983] CTC 231; 83 DTC 5180, as well as the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Canadian Marconi Company v The Queen, [1984] CTC 319; 84 DTC 6267. ...

Both stated that to the best of their recollection, there were never any discussions of the possibility for resale at the time a property was being considered for acquisition. ... It is not surprising to have witnesses insist that the appellants’ intentions were solely to make investments and that the possibility of re-sale was never discussed nor considered. ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer’s training, the taxpayer’s intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... In his notice of appeal dated September 20, 1982, Boyko sais that when the horse racing venture was being considered he had “a very limited knowledge of the horse industry.” ...

The Point at Issue The point at issue is whether the purchase of the appellant’s farm by his son for $31,344 in 1981 may be considered as transferred or distributed to his son “after the death of the Appellant”, and as a consequence thereof within the wording of provision 70(9) of the Income Tax Act. ... The respondent contends rather that the purchase of the farm must be considered as being “acquired” by the son within the meaning of provision 70(5) of the Act. ...

He did recognize that the prospect of the property increasing in value over the years did exist — but he had never considered the prospect of resale at a profit, at the time of acquisition. ... In order for these appellants to be absolved, it would be necessary for Mr Grotski to exhibit, beyond any reasonable question, that the rental revenue route was the only one he considered and he did not come close to doing that. ...

It was Mr Coffey’s opinion that these expenses could not be considered a reserve, this term being used strictly for the appropriation of a surplus account in setting aside something for some future event or reason. ... Although counsel conceded that the expense could not be considered an outlay under paragraph 18(1)(a) because the appellants were not necessarily aware of the claim, it was submitted that the amounts were nonetheless an expense which was incurred in that fiscal year. ...

[Emphasis added] When a similar issue was considered in relation to subsection 14(1) of the Income Tax Act RSC 1952, in Ken Steeves Sales Limited v MNR, [1955] Ex CR 108; [1955] CTC 47; 55 DTC 1044, Mr Justice Cameron found that the appellant’s method would give a completely inaccurate picture of the year’s operations; would fail to reflect the true profit or loss of the business and further found that there was no evidence of acceptance by the Minister of the appellant’s accounting method. ... The last issue to be considered is whether or not the cash method of computing income utilized by the appellant “has been accepted’’ within the meaning of paragraph 12(l)(b). ...

Without having had the opportunity of hearing the evidence of Mr Hack or the taxpayer’s lawyer, both of whom represented the taxpayer and considered the proposal made by Mr Erlichman, it would, in my opinion, be unwise and imprudent for the Court to enforce the terms of settlement without having greater certainty that the agreement had been clearly and fully accepted by the taxpayer or his official agents. ... In my opinion the wording of Mr Hack’s letter of June 14, 1982 was not sufficiently conclusive to be considered a binding contract between the parties. ...

A trial judge cannot be expected to refer in his reasons to all of the evidence which he considered in making those findings and in drawing those inferences. ... I cannot agree with counsel that the variety of the mortgages, their terms, the wide variation in the interest rates payable and the consequent cost thereof as that cost related to the anticipated revenues from the production and marketing of grapes, are factors which can be ignored or considered to be irrelevant. ...