Search - considered

Against the backdrop of that standard, and having considered the parties’ respective written and oral submissions, I consider the following issues to represent an appropriate framework for the adjudication of these applications, including consideration of the Applicant’s principal arguments as captured in its articulation of the issues set out above: Is the Original Decision reasonable? ... In that case, the applicant’s representative had sought clarification surrounding the decision from the CBSA officer who made the decision, and the Court held that, having initiated the very communications in question, the applicant could not insist that they not be considered in assessing the reasonableness of the officer’s decision (at para 68). ... In arriving at this conclusion, I have considered the Applicant’s submission that, in reviewing the record for evidence of CBSA’s intention, the Court should not consider evidence that post-dates the Original Decision. ...

The fact that full payment would require the payment of interest as well as future instalments of principal, if in fact such payments became payable, does not in my view justify a conclusion that the interest portion of such full payment must be considered as a payment on account of capital, since it is merely one element which together with the payments of principal constitutes full payment. ... If it is concluded that the contract established the right to receive an amount which would however only be quantified in the three following years, then the interest paid on these capital payments once they were determined would be considered as income. ... What he had was rights to payment in accordance with the contract including undetermined amounts designated as interest therein which depended on the amounts of the capital payments to come due, and could not be considered as income from the property which had been sold. ...

Patricia Kronas testified that her father, a naval architect, was prepared to advance a substantial undisclosed sum to further the horticultural business of the company and that this commitment held despite her divorce from Eugene but that she still considered herself a member of the family. ... The price was the same and considered by the plaintiff, on advice from Balys Kronas, to be fair. ... Mr Braun, the president and managing director of that company, testified that he considered himself bound by that commitment (although legally he might not be) and extolled the advantages to the plaintiff and to his company. ...

Section 129 of the Income Tax Act reads as follows: Dividend Refund to Private Corporation 129. (1) Where a corporation was, at the end of any taxation year, a private corporation, if a return of its income for the year has been made within 4 years from the end of the year the Minister (a) may, upon mailing the notice of assessment for the year, refund without application therefor an amount (in this Act referred to as its “dividend refund” for the year) equal to the lesser of (i) /3 of all taxable dividends paid by it in the year on shares of its Capital stock, and (ii) its refundable dividend tax on hand at the end of the year; and (b) shall make such a refund after mailing the notice of assessment if application therefor has been made in writing by the corporation within 4 years from the end of the year. (2) Instead of making a refund that might otherwise be made under subsection (1), the Minister may, where the corporation is liable or about to become liable to make any payment under this Act, apply the amount that would otherwise be refundable to that other liability and notify the corporation of that action. (3) In this section, “refundable dividend tax on hand” of a private corporation at the end of any particular taxation year means the aggregate of amounts each of which is an amount in respect of any taxation year com- mencing after it last became a private corporation and ending not later than the end of the particular taxation year, equal to the least of (a) 25% of the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of its Canadian investment income for the year and its foreign investment income for the year exceeds the amount deductible under paragraph 111(1)(b) from the corporation’s income for the year, (b) the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of (i) 25% of the corporation’s Canadian investment income for the year, and (ii) the amount, if any, by which 40% of the corporation’s foreign investment income for the year exceeds the aggregate of amounts deducted under subsection 126(1) from the tax for the year otherwise payable by it under this Part, exceeds 25% of the amount deductible under paragraph 111(1)(b) from the corporation’s income for the year, (c) 25% of the amount, if any, by which the corporation’s taxable income for the year exceeds the aggregate of (i) 4 times the amount, if any, deductible under section 125, (ii) 10/4 of the aggregate of amounts deducted under subsection 126(1), and (iii) 2 times the aggregate of amounts deducted under subsection 126(2) from the tax for the year otherwise payable by it under this Part, and (d) the amount of the tax for the year otherwise payable by it under this Part, plus the aggregate of the taxes under Part IV payable by the corporation for the particular taxation year and any previous taxation years ending after it last became a private corporation, and minus the aggregate of the corporation’s dividend refunds for taxation years ending after it last became a private corporation and before the particular taxation year. (4) In subsection (3), (a) “Canadian investment income’’ of a corporation for a taxation year means the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of (i) the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of such of the corporation’s taxable capital gains for the year from dispositions of property as may reasonably be considered to be income from sources in Canada exceeds the aggregate of such of the corporation’s allowable capital losses for the year from dispositions of property as may reasonably be considered to be losses from sources in Canada, (ii) all amounts each of which is the corporation’s income for the year (other than exempt income or any dividend the amount of which was deductible under section 112 from its income for the year) from a source in Canada that is a property (other than a property used or held by the corporation in the year in the course of carrying on a business), determined, for greater certainty, after deducting all outlays and expenses deductible in computing the corporation’s income for the year to the extent that they may reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred for the purpose of earning the income from that property, (iii) all amounts each of which is the corporation’s income for the year (other than exempt income) from a source in Canada that is a business other than an active business, determined, for greater certainty, after deducting all outlays and expenses deductible in computing the corporation’s income for the year to the extent that they may reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred for the purpose of earning the income from that business, exceeds the aggregate of amounts each cf which is a loss of the corporation for the year from a source in Canada that is a property or business other than an active business; and (b) “foreign investment income’’ of a corporation for a taxation year means the amount, if any, by which (i) the amount that would be determined under paragraph (a) in respect of the corporation for the year if the references in paragraph (a) to “in Canada” were read as references to “outside Canada’’, exceeds (ii) the aggregate of all amounts deductible under section 113 from the corporation’s income for the year. (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the least of the amounts determined under paragraphs (3)(a) to (d) in respect of the 1972 or 1973 taxation year of a corporation is, (a) in respect of its 1972 taxation year, 93% of the least of the amounts so determined; and (b) in respect of its 1973 taxation year, the aggregate of (i) 93% of that proportion of the least of the amounts so determined that the number of days in that portion of the year that is before 1973 is of the number of days in the whole year, and (ii) 100% of that proportion of the least of the amounts so determined that the number of days in that portion of the year that is after 1972 is of the number of days in the whole year. (6) Where any particular amount paid or payable to a corporation (in this subsection referred to as the “recipient corporation”) by another corporation (in this subsection referred to as the ‘‘associated corporation”) with which the recipient corporation was associated in any particular taxation year commencing after 1972, would otherwise be included in computing the income or loss, as the case may be, of the recipient corporation for the particular year from a source that is property or a business other than an active business, the following rules apply: (a) for the purposes of subsection (4), in computing that income or loss, as the case may be, (i) there shall not be included any portion (in this subsection referred to as the “deductible portion”) of the particular amount that was or may be deductible in computing the income or loss, as the case may be, of the associated corporation for any taxation year from an active business carried on by it in Canada, and (ii) no deduction shall be made in respect of any outlay or expense, to the extent that that outlay or expense may reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred by the recipient corporation for the purpose of gaining or producing the deductible portion; and (b) for the purposes of this subsection and section 125, (i) the deductible portion shall be deemed to be income of the recipient corporation for the particular year from carrying on an active business in Canada, and (ii) any outlay or expense, to the extent described in subparagraph (a)(ii), shall be deemed to have been made or incurred by the recipient corporation for the purpose of gaining or producing that income. ... The asset which produces investment income within the meaning of section 129 of the Act, on its sale or disposition will be considered for tax purposes as a sale or disposition of a capital asset and not of an inventory asset. 7. ...

The main thrust of counsel’s argument on this point, however, was directed toward persuading the Board that any amounts payable under any set of circumstances resulting from the enforcement of the third party guarantees could not be considered interest. ... Lewis v MNR (supra) at page 157 [485]: Counsel for the respondent pointed out that “Interest on Money” is defined in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd ed, Volume 23, page 174, paragraph 253, as follows: “Interest, when considered in relation to money, denotes the return or consideration, or compensation for the use or retention by one party of a sum of money or other property belonging to another, and may arise from a loan, or investment of money, or as a result of money or property belonging to one party being retained or unrepaid by another.” ... Rejecting the main argument made for the appellant (that the payments could not be considered interest at all), counsel noted: L’argument de mon confrère tente de laisser entendre qu’un paiment ne devrait pas constituer de l’intérêt lorsqu’il est payé par une partie qui n’a pas pu utiliser l’argent, qui n’a pas reçu l’avance de fonds. ...

They felt, as Mr Lucchési testified, that one of the problems in the Province of Quebec was a lack of sufficient people with administrative experience and considered that they could advise and help others realize on their investments. ... The requirement that two representatives of the plaintiff be on the board of directors of Fibracan at all times and the fact that this was to be the professed policy of the group in connection with any investments which Bourg- Royal would make, and that they considered that their engineering and business experience and financial and other contacts would be of substantial benefit to the small companies in which it was intended to invest, indicate that the policy was, if not to actually control the operation, to nevertheless be in a position to observe and influence the operation of the businesses in which investments were to be made, and thus to assist in turning these investments to a profit. ... What is the line which separates the two classes of cases may be difficult to define, and each case must be considered according to its facts; the question to be determined being—Is the sum of gain that has been made a mere enhancement of value by realising a security, or is it a gain made In an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making? ...

“J L GOURLAY” Director, Special Investigations Division After having considered the application made by the Director of Special Investigations based on the affidavit of Vernon Robert Milley. ... The evidence shows that the Minister himself never considered whether there were “reasonable and probable grounds” to believe that the plaintiffs had violated the Act at the time the seizure was made. ... It is apparent there is a wide variety of persons both within and without the Department of National Revenue who could potentially be considered “officers” according to paragraph 221 (1)(f). ...

It was considered that such assistance would enhance and encourage this aim. ... In its notice of appeal the appellant says, inter alia, that the taxability of the $450,000 is not in issue in view of the fact that the Department cancelled and annulled its claim on that score in respect of the taxation year 1962; if that amount is to be considered as taxable income it would have been taxable income only in the 1960 year when the contract was established, as the appellant is on the accrual system of accounting; under the Defence Production Act, RSC 1952, c 62, paragraph 15(f), the $450,000 was only an advance for a loan and not a grant or subsidy; there was no cancellation of the indebtedness of the appellant in respect of its obligation to repay the amount in 1961 or 1962, and even if there had been any such cancellation it would constitute capital and not income; and there was not any reassessment for 1961 or 1962. In the respondent’s reply to the notice of appeal the respondent says, inter alia, that the assessment for the appellant’s 1962 year, notice of which was dated June 5, 1964, was an assessment of the tax payable for that year, and the appeal is from that assessment; the respondent has at no time admitted or acknowledged that the assessment is incorrect; the $450,000 was paid to the appellant in its 1961 taxation year and was income for the appellant for that year; in making the assessment dated June 5, 1964, the respondent included the $450,000 in the computation of the appellant’s income for 1962, and, on objection, confirmed the assessment on the basis that the sum was income of the appellant for 1962, but he subsequently sent. forms T7W-C (Exhibits A-3 and A-4), indicating that he considered the sum should be reflected in the computation of the appellant’s loss for 1961, and therefore in the computation of its taxable income for 1962, and no change was made in the assessment of tax for 1962; the sum is to be included in computing the appellant’s income for 1962 or its loss for 1961 (and therefore its taxable income for 1962) because (a) it was received by the appellant in 1961 as income to be used in its business and to enable it to meet expenses which it treated as deductible in computing its income; (b) to the extent that expenses claimed by the appellant were defrayed or reimbursed by means of that sum it is obliged to reduce the expenses claimed by it in 1961 as deductions in computing its income; (c) the sum was paid as a contribution to the expense of development of the 24 Channel Equipment and Her Majesty was entitled to be paid an amount equal to part or all of that contribution only if a production contract. for the equipment was obtained, none was obtained and the project was abandoned by the end of the appellant’s 1962 year. ...

The concept of section 13 of the Income Tax Act in its present form and in previous statutory form has been judicially considered by this Court on a number of occasions, as for example in the following cases: MNR v Barbara A Robertson, [1954] CTC 110; 54 DTC 1062; George H Steer v MNR, [1965] CTC 181; 65 DTC 5115; J Harold Wood v MNR, [1967] CTC 66; 67 DTC 5045; MNR v Grieve et al, [1959] CTC 320; 59 DTC 1186; Robert Charles Simpson v MNR, [1961] CTC 174; 61 DTC 1117; CBA Engineering Limited v MNR, [1971] CTC 504; 71 DTC 5282; Oscar Dorfman v MNR, [1972] CTC 151; 72 DTC 6131. ... But the point to note is that the fact of reasonable expectation of profit or not is one indicium only to be considered in each case. ... In coming to a conclusion in this case, I have considered what the appellant did in respect to his business of horse racing from 1966 to 1971. ...

Cairns was actively considered by the Appellant in 1969 for employment upon the acquisition by the Appellant of a large wholesale grocery business. the negotiations for the acquisition of which proved abortive at that time. 25. ... According to the witness, the building was transferred at $24,880 which was the undepreciated capital cost — possibly to avoid recapture but also because it was considered to be part and parcel of a reasonable price for the overall deal. ... Since 1968 it has changed its charter and its name, and has filed documents in other jurisdictions to protect the name of Valu-Mart. it was actively considered by management for the acquisition of the assets of another company. ...