Search - considered

According to the appellant, the questioning of his status was abusive to the point that the respondent's position could be considered harassment. ... The fact that he signed cheques for substantial amounts to persons other than the beneficiary of the amount shows carelessness to the point that it can be considered negligence ...   [81]         In tax law, there is no requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt at all; there must, however, be a likelihood that the person being assessed has committed a fault to the degree that it could be considered gross negligence and not a fault resulting from a lack of vigilance ...

He considered potential economic use of the lands for future urban development. ... The difference between Hughes and Strung is that Hughes considered that possible use, and ruled it out. ... Strung, on the other hand, considered that potential use, and adopted it. ...

Herbert Family Trust No. 1 (the “ Trust ”) received a dividend in an amount of $2,200,003 CDN in 2001; and   WHEREAS the dividend was considered by the trustees to be on account of capital as it relates to the distribution of all, or substantially all, the assets of the payor; and   WHEREAS the trustees hereby declare that the dividend of $2,200,003 CDN be paid to Mr.  ... (c)        income of or from an estate or a trust to the extent that the amount   (i) is included in computing the income of the non-resident person under subsection 104(13), except to the extent that the amount is deemed by subsection 104(21) to be a taxable capital gain of the non-resident person, or   (ii) can reasonably be considered (having regard to all the circumstances including the terms and conditions of the estate or trust arrangement) to be a distribution of, or derived from, an amount received by the estate or trust as, on account of, in lieu of payment of or in satisfaction of, a dividend on a share of the capital stock of a corporation resident in Canada, other than a taxable dividend;   (Emphasis added ... If, on the other hand, an analysis of the facts with regard to subsection 212(13.1) leads to the conclusion that an actual payment or credit has occurred, then other provisions of Part XIII, including paragraph 214(3)(a), must be considered to determine whether the character of that payment or credit requires a tax to be paid ...

Telidetzki considered that while Simon could determine the bonuses, the appellant did not have the authority to determine his bonus. ... Minister of National Revenue (1963) where the money to pay the taxpayer’s salary in 1960 was available, but he voluntarily chose not to be paid until 1961, he was considered to have actually received the money. ... Erroneous or false booking entries do not create facts; accounting entries may however be evidence of facts — consider, for example, section 30 of the Canada Evidence Act — evidence to be considered along with any other evidence as was done in the Phillips case.    ...

This Court can envision the situation in a defalcation case where the actions of the taxpayer could be considered to be unreasonable under section 67. ... Neither counsel attempted to point to any actions of the Appellant up to that point in time which could have been considered to be reasonable and the Court is satisfied that the Appellant acted throughout in much the same manner. [19]            While the Tax Court Judge sympathised with the appellant's situation, he was not ready to have the Canadian taxpayers assume the burden of his losses: [179] At the end of the day, the Court is satisfied that the expenses in issue in this case cannot be deducted because they are prohibited by the provisions of paragraph 18(1)(a) and section 67 of the Act. ... Nor is this a defalcation case of the type described in Parkland Operations, supra; Cassidy's Limited, supra; Agnew, supra; and IT-185R, where a business is defrauded by an employee or a third party, and the issue becomes whether the resulting loss is reasonably incidental to the income-earning activities. [28]            A fraudulent scheme from beginning to end or a sting operation, if that be the case, cannot give rise to a source of income from the victim's point of view and hence cannot be considered as a business under any definition. ...

The appellant had considered itself bound by its March 2, 1984 agreement respecting retroactive wage increases and, until then, had followed what was described as a usual practice to continue as though the previous and expired union agreement had remained in full force and effect. ... When an employee is granted sick leave with pay and injury-on-duty leave is subsequently approved for the same period, it shall be considered, for the purpose of the record of sick leave credits, that the employee was not granted sick leave with pay. 11.10 Employees qualifying for Workers' Compensation coverage shall not have their employment terminated during the compensable period. 11.11 Sick leave pay shall be computed on the basis of scheduled work days and all claims will be paid on this basis. 11.12 Sick leave payments will be made according to actual time off. 11.13 An employee must apply for sick leave pay to cover periods of actual time lost from work owing to sickness or accident. ... However, even if what is about to be considered argumentatively includes the appellant’s 1982 year- end situation, no remedy is possible if it would require an addition to the appellant's 1982 income with a corresponding increase in tax liability which, by the authorities, I am precluded from doing: see Louis J. ...

The words of that subsection are precisely the same as those found in paragraph 122(1)(b) of the Canada Business Corporations Ac t, [9] and were considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Peoples Department Stores Inc. v. ... Second, by virtue of s. 153(3), the debtor can in law be considered to be utilizing an asset which is the property of its employees.  ... This misappropriation is surely conduct beyond the threshold of culpability under subsection 227(9) of the Act, no matter whether the offence be considered “strict liability” or something else. ...

After these discussions, Rose corrected the various entries in the general ledger of R.V.P. for 1985 and 1986 to record what he and Voukelatos considered the proper transaction, that is, that R.V.P. purchased the shares. ... There are however, certain limitations that must be considered in examining the plea of non est factum. ... This Court recently considered appeals in which taxpayers asked the Court to find they erred in executing certain documents and that these documents ought to be ignored by the respondent when making an assessment. ...

The Respondent’s position is that it is insufficient for the Appellant to state that he always considered that these payments were a repayment of his loan, because it is not simply what the Appellant intended to do but, rather, what he actually did that is relevant to the payment characterization ... Caselaw has confirmed that a payment, made by a corporation to its shareholder/lender, will not be considered an automatic setoff but, rather, its true nature will be determined by the parties’ intentions respecting the payments together with the entirety of the evidence adduced at the hearing ... (as he was then) stated at paragraph 11 of that decision:      [11] In drawing the line between “ordinary” negligence or neglect and “gross” negligence a number of factors have to be considered. ...

Section 245 reads: (1) In this section, “tax benefit"' — “tax benefit” means a reduction, avoidance or déferrai of tax or other amount payable under this Act or an increase in a refund of tax or other amount under this Act; “tax consequences’ — “tax consequences” to a person means the amount of income, taxable income, or taxable income earned in Canada of, tax or other amount payable by or refundable to the person under this Act, or any other amount that is relevant for the purposes of computing that amount; “transaction” — “transaction” includes an arrangement or event. (2) Where a transaction is an avoidance transaction, the tax conséquences to a person shall be determined as is reasonable in the circumstances in order to deny a tax benefit that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, from that transaction or from a series of transactions that includes that transaction. (3) An avoidance transaction means any transaction (a) that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit; or (b) that is part of a series of transactions, which series, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. (4) For greater certainty, subsection (2) does not apply to a transaction where it may reasonably be considered that the transaction would not result directly or indirectly in a misuse of the provisions of the Act or an abuse having regard to the provisions of this Act, other than this section, read as a whole. (5) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), (a) any deduction in computing income, taxable income, taxable income earned in Canada or tax payable or any part thereof may be allowed or disallowed in whole or in part, (b) any such deduction, any income, loss or other amount or part thereof may be allocated to any person, (c) the nature of any payment or other amount may be recharacterized, and (d) the tax effects that would otherwise result from the application of other provisions of this Act may be ignored, in determining the tax consequences to a person as is reasonable in the circumstances in order to deny a tax benefit that would, but for this section, result, directly or indirectly, from an avoidance transaction. (6) Where with respect to a transaction (a) a notice of assessment, reassessment or additional assessment involving the application of subsection (2) with respect to the transaction has been sent to a person, or (b) a notice of determination pursuant to subsection 152(1.11) has been sent to a person with respect to the transaction, any person (other than a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) shall be entitled, within 180 days after the day of mailing of the notice, to request in writing that the Minister make an assessment, reassessment or additional assessment applying subsection (2) or make a determination applying subsection 152(1.11) with respect to that transaction. (7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the tax consequences to any person, following the application of this section, shall only be determined through a notice of assessment, reassessment, additional assessment or determination pursuant to subsection 152(1.11) involving the application of this section. (8) On receipt of a request by a person under subsection (6), the Minister shall, with all due dispatch, consider the request and, notwithstanding subsection 152(4), assess, reassess or make an additional assessment or determination pursuant to subsection 152(1.11) with respect to that person, except that an assessment, reassessment, additional assessment or determination may be made under this subsection only to the extent that it may reasonably be regarded as relating to the transaction referred to in subsection (6). ...