Search - considered

The Revenue Canada telephone information line advised me that Revenue Canada considered us “married” because we had no separation agreement and continued to live under the same roof. ... The problem has often been considered in actions brought under subparagraph 4(1)(e)(i) of the Divorce Act and, generally speaking, a finding that the parties were living separate and apart from each other has been made where the following circumstances were present: (i) Spouses occupying separate bedrooms. ...

(b) for the benefit of the taxpayer, children in the custody of the taxpayer or both the taxpayer and those children, the amount or any part thereof, when paid, shall be deemed, for the purposes of paragraphs 56(1)(b), (c) and... to have been paid to and received by the taxpayer. (2) For the purposes of paragraphs 56(1)(b), (c) and... the amount, if any, by which (a) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is an amount (other than an amount to which paragraph 56(1)(b), (c) or... otherwise applies) paid by a person in a taxation year, pursuant to a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or pursuant to a written agreement, in respect of an expense... incurred in the year or the immediately preceding taxation year for maintenance of a taxpayer who is (i) that person’s spouse or former spouse, or or for the maintenance of children in the taxpayer’s custody or both the taxpayer and those children if, at the time the expense was incurred and throughout the remainder of the year, the taxpayer was living apart from that person exceeds [a formula follows] shall, where the decree, order, judgment or written agreement, as the case may be, provides that this subsection and subsection 60.1(2) shall apply to any payment made pursuant thereto, be deemed to be an amount paid by that person and received by the taxpayer as an allowance payable on a periodic basis. (3) For the purposes of this section and section 56, where a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or a written agreement made at any time in a taxation year provides that an amount received before that time and in the year or the immediately preceding taxation year is to be considered as having been paid and received pursuant thereto, the following rules apply: (a) the amount shall be deemed to have been received pursuant thereto; and (b) the person who made the payment shall be deemed to have been separated pursuant to a divorce, judicial separation or written separation agreement from his spouse or former spouse at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year. 60 There may be deducted in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year such of the following amounts as are applicable: (b) an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year, pursuant to a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or pursuant to a written agreement, as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if he was living apart from, and was separated pursuant to a divorce, judicial separation or written separation agreement from, his spouse or former spouse to whom he was required to make the payment at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year; (c) an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year, pursuant to an order of a competent tribunal, as an allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if he was living apart from his spouse to whom he was required to make the payment at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year; 60.1(1) Where, after May 6, 1974, a decree, order, judgment or written agreement described in paragraph 60(b), (c) or..., or any variation thereof, has been made providing for the periodic payment of an amount by a taxpayer (a) to a person who is (i) the taxpayer’s spouse or former spouse, or (b) for the benefit of the person or children in the custody of the person, or both the person and those children, the amount or any part thereof, when paid, shall be deemed, for the purposes of paragraphs 60(b), (c) and... to have been paid to and received by that person. (2) For the purposes of paragraphs 60(b), (c) and... the amount, if any, by which (a) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is an amount (other than an amount to which paragraphs 60(b), (c) or... otherwise applies) paid by a taxpayer in a taxation year, pursuant to a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or pursuant to a written agreement, in respect of an expense... incurred in the year or the immediately preceding taxation year for maintenance of a person who is (i) the taxpayer’s spouse or former spouse, or or for the maintenance of children in the person’s custody or both the person and those children if, at the time the expense was incurred and throughout the remainder of the year, the taxpayer was living apart from that person exceeds [a formula follows] shall, where the decree, order, judgment or written agreement, as the case may be, provides that this subsection and subsection 56.1(2) shall apply to any payment made pursuant thereto, be deemed to be an amount paid by the taxpayer and received by that person as an allowance payable on a periodic basis. (3) For the purposes of this section and section 60, where a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or a written agreement made at any time in a taxation year provides that an amount paid before that time and in the year or the immediately preceding taxation year is to be considered as having been paid and received pursuant thereto the following rules apply: (a) the amount shall be deemed to have been paid pursuant thereto; and (b) the person who made the payment shall be deemed to have been separated pursuant to a divorce, judicial separation or written separation agreement from his spouse or former spouse at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year. ...

He performed the same or similar duties under the Agency Agreement that he performed as pastor at the Church and should therefore be considered an employee. ... I also considered the fact that he had to report to the Foundation and had to conduct himself in such a way that fulfilled the Foundation’s purpose. ...

Preliminary Issue: New Evidence [19] The Respondent argues that the Applicant has included materials in her Application Record that were not before the decision-maker, that this evidence is therefore improperly before the Court on judicial review, and that it should not be considered. [20] The general rule is that the evidentiary record before a court on judicial review is restricted to that which was before the tribunal (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at para 19). ... Reasonableness of the Decisions [28] The Applicant’s primary position on the reasonableness of the Decisions is that the income that had been reported in Box 28 of her 2019 T4A should be considered as contributing to the required $5,000 for CERB and CRB eligibility. ...

However, I find that none of these exceptions apply to the disputed documents here and accordingly, I have not considered them in reaching my decision. ... The Applicant was given numerous opportunities over that 18-month period to submit documents and information to remedy the issues identified with her applications, which documents and information the Officer considered [see Flock v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 305 at paras 25-26]. [35] Having reviewed the record, I am satisfied that the Applicant was aware of the case to meet and given a full and fair opportunity to respond. ...

In the absence of an at-large extension of time, then, each request must be considered on its own merits. ... I see no reviewable error in this observation, as ignorance of the law is not generally considered a sufficient basis to extend a deadline under paragraph 256(3)(b) of the Excise Tax Act. ...

Their Lordships then take Mill’s definition above quoted as a fair basis for testing the character of the tax in question, not only because it is chosen by the appellant’s counsel, nor only because it is that of an eminent writer, nor with the intention that it should be considered a binding legal definition, but because it seems to them to embody with sufficient accuracy for this purpose an understanding of the most obvious indicia of direct and indirect taxation, which is a common understanding, and is likely to have been present to the minds of those who passed the Federation Act. Now whether the probabilities of the case or the frame of the Quebec Act are considered, it appears to their Lordships that the Quebec legislature must have intended and desired that the very corporations from whom the tax is demanded should pay and finally bear it. ...

In considering a tax of this nature and imposed in this way, it is to be considered that a contractor is in the business for profit. ... It cannot be considered that he will absorb the tax himself for the amount of the tax as in this case might be the very margin of his profit. ...

"Their Lordships then take Mill’s definition above quoted as a fair basis for testing the character of the tax in question, not only because it is chosen by the Appellant’s counsel, nor only because it is that of an eminent writer, nor with the intention that it should be considered a binding legal definition, but because it seems to them to embody with sufficient accuracy for this purpose an understanding of the most obvious indicia of direct and indirect taxation, which is a common understanding, and is likely to have been present to the minds of those who passed the Federation Act.’’ ... They do not extend, for instance, to a dog tax, which is clearly direct taxation, though the machinery of the excise law might be applied to its collection, or to a licence duty, such as was considered in Lambe} s ease. ...

The question considered by the Judicial Committee was whether or not these boards were agents of the government. ... But there is another point of view from which the controversy in this appeal ought to be considered. ...