Search - considered

In his argument, counsel for the Minister agreed with the appellant’s counsel that on the facts disclosed no case had been made out which would bring the case within Section 85B of the Act, and accordingly paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal need not be considered. ... There was then no suggestion that either the appellant or Cochren considered the lots to have increased in value beyond the price paid by Robinson in April, 1953. ... I have carefully considered the question of costs and have reached the conclusion that in the circumstances of this appeal, no costs should be awarded to or against either party. ...

And so you do everything you can to provide a real quality of life, and respect them, and have life be as happy and normal as you can make it in an institutional setting. [8]      During the period of construction Revenue Canada officials advised the Society that they considered the construction of the Centre to be a commercial activity, and that it would be required to make a self-assessment of a self-supply of the building under subsection 191(3) of the Act. ... (emphasis added) Removing the unnecessary verbiage, and relating what is left to the facts of this case, leads to the conclusion that if, when the building of the Centre was substantially completed, the appellant gave a person possession of a residential unit in the building under a lease, license or similar arrangement for the purpose of occupying it as a place of residence, then the deeming provision is operative, and there is a self-supply that attracts tax. [10]     Three definitions found in section 123 of the Act must therefore be considered. ... No application was made by the appellant after May 1, 1998 to be designated, nor has the Minister made any such designation since that date. [31]     Counsel for the appellant has advanced several reasons why this apparent absence of a post-May 1998 designation ought not to be considered fatal to its 83% rebate claim. ...

    [21]         She also cites article 1425 of the Civil Code of Québec (CCQ) which provides that the parties' intention must be considered. ... In short, this case law supports the Respondent’s position that it is the date of resignation or removal from office that alone must be considered in determining the starting point of the two-year time period in subsection 323(5) of the ETA.  ___________________________________ 4.      ... These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective “reasonably prudent person” standard. ...

These were persons who were considered to be directors by their actions as opposed to by election or appointment. ... The shareholders, by their acquiescence, could be considered to have cured the irregularity regarding the number of directors on the board and their appointment: see in this respect pages 234 and 235 in the chapter entitled “Irregularities” in F.W. ... It would appear that the Appellants could be considered de jure directors. ...

Even if one considered them applicable to the same subject matter, paragraph 12(1) (i) cannot be considered more specific than subsection 40(1) as both are general provisions dealing with different types of income ...   [22]          Subsection 248(28) reads as follows:   248(28)  Unless a contrary intention is evident, no provision of this Act shall be read or construed   (a)        to require the inclusion or permit the deduction, either directly or indirectly, in computing a taxpayer’s income, taxable income or taxable income earned in Canada, for a taxation year or in computing a taxpayer’s income or loss for a taxation year from a particular source or from sources in a particular place, of any amount to the extent that the amount has already been directly or indirectly included or deducted, as the case may be, in computing such income, taxable income, taxable income earned in Canada or loss, for the year or any preceding taxation year;   (b)        to permit the deduction, either directly or indirectly, in computing a taxpayer’s tax payable under any Part of this Act for a taxation year of any amount to the extent that the amount has already been directly or indirectly deducted in computing such tax payable for the year or any preceding taxation year; or   (c)        to consider an amount to have been paid on account of a taxpayer’s tax payable under any Part of this Act for a taxation year to the extent that the amount has already been considered to have been paid on account of such tax payable for the year or any preceding taxation year ...

While he was visiting in Canada, Mr Mentzelopoulos contacted Mr Hobson, the General Manager of the Bank of Montreal at Toronto, advising him of his desire to make a permanent investment in Canada, “... so my children and grandchildren would find something in a solid country which I considered may be one of the two countries in the world to-day offering geographical and political security” (Evidence, vol I, p 40). ... If, after considering all these matters, the Court concludes that the possibility of turning the property to account for profit in any way which might present itself as convenient or expedient, including resale, was a major motivating factor, or that an investment intention was not the only motivating factor at time of acquisition, then the Court must find any profit ensuing from a resulting sale to be taxable as an adventure in the nature of trade.* [2] A perusal of the reasons for judgment satisfies me that the learned trial judge did consider the relevant objective facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction and that he also considered carefully the two reasons given by Mr Mentzelopoulos for selling the property, thereby correctly applying to the facts of the case, the pertinent jurisprudence referred to supra. ... The activities of this appellant are carefully considered and analyzed in that portion of his reasons referred to supra. ...

He pointed out that in 1981 the appellant had considered these receivables to be in the doubtful category and denied that A.D.T. was undercapitalized at its inception. ... He verified that the receivables from A.D.T. were treated the same as all other receivables with the exception of the advantage gained by having access to A.D.T.'s financial statements, and that up until January 1, 1980 collection of A.D.T.'s accounts were not considered doubtful in his discussions with the appellant's management. Beginning in the year January 1, 1981 however, the accumulated unpaid accounts receivable from A.D.T. at that point of time, $158,185, was considered doubtful. ...

But, given the advantage attached to the issue and acquisition of the promissory note, that is, the tax credit, the acquisition and disposition of the promissory note cannot be considered in isolation. ... It is a tantalizingly appealing argument that the promissory note be considered in isolation from the whole of the transaction; however, that is not the real story. What must be considered is the complete transaction and the reason the appellant undertook that transaction. ...

However, if the tax authorities consider that the purchase of the shares of company XYZ are a prescribed benefit reducing the cost of the investment and that at that point the proportion of the research and development expense in the company for a member is greater than the cost of the investment less the proceeds of disposition of the shares, the Colimax project will be considered a tax shelter and a tax shelter number must be obtained.... [51]     Annette Letendre testified at the request of the respondent. ... However, with reference to the Colimax plan dated March 2, 1992, that was followed (Exhibit I-11), the attached tax opinion clearly states that this project would be considered a tax shelter and that a tax shelter number should be obtained. [62]     Where is this document that was not filed with the Court and which stated that the plan being promoted was not a tax shelter? ... Conclusion [64]     Subsection 162(9) of the Act reads as follows: 162(9) Tax shelter identification number- Every person who (a) files false or misleading information with the Minister in an application under subsection 237.1(2) for an identification number for a tax shelter, or (b) whether as a principal or as an agent, sells, issues or accepts a contribution for the acquisition of an interest in a tax shelter before the Minister has issued an identification number therefor, is liable to a penalty equal to the greater of (c) $500, and (d) 3% of the total of all amounts each of which is the cost to each person who acquired an interest in the tax shelter before the correct information is filed with the Minister or the identification number is issued, as the case may be. [65]     In subsection 237.1(1) of the Act, the words "tax shelter" and "promoter" are defined as follows: "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 or any preceding taxation 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. ...

He also confirmed that although the land had in the past been considered for acquisition and development as part of the appellant's regular business, it was only an idea which was dropped. ... The meaning of the terms undue" and artificial" were considered in Spur Oil Ltd., supra, at page 343 (D.T.C. 5173):... the finding of artificiality in the transaction being examined, does not, per se, attract the prohibition set out in subsection 137(1) [now 245(1)] of the Income Tax Act. ... Considered separately neither of these elements justifies a disallowance of the interest paid under subsection 245(1). ...