Search - considered

Turning to the practicality of the defence, Robertson J.A. considered the evidentiary difficulties and costs associated with discerning whether the tax has effectively been passed on. ... At this point of the analysis, the Court explicitly recognized that the juristic reasons for the enrichment had to be considered in light of the reasonable expectation of the parties and certain public policy considerations (para. 46). ... The question in the present case became, ultimately, whether such concerns are properly considered within the Garland test. ...

  [21]            In respect of the 1997 year, the promoters testified that the General Partner and Trafalgar Capital agreed that the amount of the accrued interest on the Acquisition Note in respect of that year was to be paid on behalf of the limited partners by offsetting that amount against a corresponding amount that was considered to be owing by Trafalgar Capital to the Limited Partnership, namely, the total of the actual business revenues for that year plus an amount that was considered to be payable to Trafalgar Capital to the Limited Partnership under the Clause 4.01(k) Warranty ... That provision reads as follows: (13) For the purpose of this section, where it can reasonably be considered that information relating to indebtedness that relates to a taxpayer’s expenditure is available outside Canada and the Minister is not satisfied that the unpaid principal of the indebtedness is not a limited-recourse amount, the unpaid principal of the indebtedness relating to the taxpayer’s expenditure is deemed to be a limited-recourse amount relating to the expenditure unless (a) the information is provided to the Minister; or (b) the information is located in a country with which the Government of Canada has entered into a tax convention or agreement that has the force of law in Canada and includes a provision under which the Minister can obtain the information.   13) Pour l’application du présent article, lorsqu’il est raisonnable de considérer que des renseignements concernant une dette se rapportant à une dépense d’un contribuable se trouvent à l’étranger et que le ministre n’est pas convaincu que le principal impayé de la dette n’est pas un montant à recours limité, le principal impayé de la dette est réputé être un montant à recours limité se rapportant à la dépense, sauf si, selon le cas: a) les renseignements sont fournis au ministre; b) les renseignements se trouvent dans un pays avec lequel le gouvernement du Canada a conclu une convention ou un accord fiscal qui a force de loi au Canada et qui comprend une disposition en vertu de laquelle le ministre peut obtenir les renseignements ... Canada, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 94, 2003 SCC 9, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether the application of section 222, a tax-debt collection provision, was subject to any temporal limitation. ...

However, pursuant to s. 6(e) of the Regulations, it is equally clear that the Commission has chosen not to do so by indicating that where taxidrivers are the operators of the business, they will not be considered to be included in "insurable employment". [42]            In [1983] 1 S.C.R. 2 "> Abrahams v. ... For this reason, hairdressers, taxi drivers, trainees/apprentices and persons under contract with an employment agency, to name a few, are included in insurable employment notwithstanding that under a traditional employee/independent contractor analysis, they would most often be considered independent contractors. ... Checkmate was, in essence, a dispatch service, whereas here Yellow Cab provides services above and beyond those of a simple dispatcher. [86]            In an alternative argument, it is asserted both Yellow Cab and the Drivers can be considered to be operators concurrently. ...

In Canbra Foods Ltd v Westersund (1977), [12] the Alberta Supreme Court Appellate Division considered, inter alia, the meaning of a “grain dealer” in the context of the licensing requirements pursuant to the Canadian Grain Act (“ CGA ”). [13] Under the CGA, a “grain dealer” was required to be licenced before it made any contract in respect of the purchase and sale of grain. ... While this is the general statutory context of the exclusion of a “scrap metal dealer” from the SPITC Reduction, it does not assist with the meaning of this exclusion. [59]         In the contextual analysis, the presumption against tautology must be considered to the extent that the term “scrap metal dealer” would be rendered redundant or meaningless in the context of the surrounding statutory provisions. ... To the extent that large national and multi-national coffee shop chains incur electricity costs in the course of making coffee and food for sale directly to consumers, the provincial portion of the ITCs in respect of the electricity costs must be recaptured as such activities are not considered “production” within the meaning of section 26 of the Regulations. ...

No other form like a loan from or a debt to 2869 was mentioned;  (iii)   the respondent was an impleaded party in the Superior Court of Quebec case and the respondent could have made submissions to the effect that the amounts could be owing to 2869 in a form other than as the reimbursement of the amounts received as capital dividends under the April 30, 2013, notice of assessment, but the respondent chose to not make such submissions; and (iv)   in the alternative, if the amounts the appellant received could be considered a loan from or debt to 2869, they could not be considered as such until after January 6, 2014, the date of the judgment ordering the restitution of the amounts received. ... (d) the respondent misinterpreted the Superior Court of Quebec decision of January 6, 2014, and the appellant raises the following elements in support of his position: (i)   the Superior Court of Quebec decision of January 6, 2014, arose from a motion for a declaratory judgment to have the dividend of $596,881, which 2869 declared for the benefit of the appellant, declared null; counsel for the respondent filed a consent to judgment with respect to the motion; (ii)   the decision cancels, among other things, the February 2, 2008, resolution, declaring the dividend and the appellant's right to claim payment of said dividend to be null and non-existent; (iii)   this decision also orders the appellant to repay the amounts he received as capital dividends resulting from the February 2, 2008, resolution, with interest at the rate set out in section 80.4 of the Act; (iv)   the fact remains that until the Court rendered its decision, the amounts received by the appellant could not have been considered anything other than capital dividends; (v)   in accordance with what the judge ordered in her decision, it was only after January 6, 2014, that the appellant was under the obligation to repay the amounts that were received as capital dividends to 2869; the amounts to be returned to 2869 constitute amounts the appellant received as capital dividends from 2869 and not amounts he could have received in another form, that is, as either a loan or a debt; (vi)   as indicated in the decision, the Court orders the February 2, 2008, resolution by the sole director to be removed from the minutes book; this order could not have been made before the decision was rendered; (vii)   the restitution order resulting from the quashing of the February 2, 2008, resolution is only enforceable from the date of the decision, that is, January 6, 2014; (viii)     it follows from the interpretation of the foregoing and the Court's decision that no amount could be owing as a loan or otherwise to 2869 before the decision was rendered on January 6, 2014, and, as a result, if the Minister's assessment is valid, which is denied, any amount owing as such could only be payable as of January 6, 2014. ... The restitution was naturally not possible before the date of the judgment. [54]   The question at this stage is as follows: can the amounts the appellant received from 2869 be considered loans from the corporation to its shareholder or as debts incurred by the shareholder to the corporation that could result in the application of subsection 15(2) of the Act? ...

The Supreme Court of Canada, in Moldowan, above, listed the following as part of a non-exhaustive list of factors that should be considered when determining whether there is a reasonable expectation of profits: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer’s training, the taxpayer’s intended course of action, and the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital loss allowance. [47]   As noted above, the Beekeepers have deliberately designed a class definition that excludes hobbyist beekeepers. ... [75]   I find that there are issues in common, such that allowing the action to proceed as a class action will avoid duplication of fact-finding and legal analysis, as well as a multiplicity of individual actions based on the same issues. [76]   Rule 334.16(1)(c) requires the Court to determine whether the claims of the class members raise common questions of law or fact, and whether or not those common questions predominate over questions affecting only individual members. [77]   In Vivendi Canada Inc v Dell’Aniello, 2014 SCC 1 at paragraph 46, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that: Rumley and [WCSC] therefore establish the principle that a question will be considered common if it can serve to advance the resolution of every class member’s claim. ... Similarly, the cause of action for the novel tort of abusive administrative action focuses on the Federal Crown’s conduct (at para 144): As well, the quality of the public authority’s conduct must be considered. ...

Even if the CSA between the Appellant and the Latecomer is considered an agreement pursuant to subsection 123(a), the recipient will still be determined by reference to the CSA between the Appellant and the Frontender. ... In such circumstances, the person acting on behalf of the purchaser is considered an agent of the purchaser. … Ownership of Property Generally, an agent does not acquire an interest in any property it acquires as agent on behalf of a principal, as the ownership of the property passes directly to the principal. ... In Telus, this Court considered whether a third party can become a recipient of a taxable supply by virtue of a second agreement where there is an assumption of the liability for payment of the consideration. ...

Gervais obtaining a tax benefit. [17]            Second, the TCC Judge considered whether the existence of avoidance transaction had been established. ... Avoidance transaction Opération d’évitement (3) An avoidance transaction means any transaction (3) L’opération d’évitement s’entend: (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 a) soit de l’opération dont, sans le présent article, découlerait, directement ou indirectement, un avantage fiscal, sauf s’il est raisonnable de considérer que l’opération est principalement effectuée pour des objets véritables — l’obtention de l’avantage fiscal n’étant pas considérée comme un objet véritable; (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. b) soit de l’opération qui fait partie d’une série d’opérations dont, sans le présent article, découlerait, directement ou indirectement, un avantage fiscal, sauf s’il est raisonnable de considérer que l’opération est principalement effectuée pour des objets véritables — l’obtention de l’avantage fiscal n’étant pas considérée comme un objet véritable. Application of subsection (2) Application du par. (2) (4) Subsection (2) applies to a transaction only if it may reasonably be considered that the transaction (4) Le paragraphe (2) ne s’applique qu’à l’opération dont il est raisonnable de considérer, selon le cas: (a) would, if this Act were read without reference to this section, result directly or indirectly in a misuse of the provisions of any one or more of a) qu’elle entraînerait, directement ou indirectement, s’il n’était pas tenu compte du présent article, un abus dans l’application des dispositions d’un ou de plusieurs des textes suivants: (i) this Act, (i) la présente loi, (ii) the Income Tax Regulations, (ii) le Règlement de l’impôt sur le revenu, (iii) the Income Tax Application Rules, (iii) les Règles concernant l’application de l’impôt sur le revenu, (iv) a tax treaty, or (iv) un traité fiscal, (v) any other enactment that is relevant in computing tax or any other amount payable by or refundable to a person under this Act or in determining any amount that is relevant for the purposes of that computation; or (v) tout autre texte législatif qui est utile soit pour le calcul d’un impôt ou de toute autre somme exigible ou remboursable sous le régime de la présente loi, soit pour la détermination de toute somme à prendre en compte dans ce calcul; (b) would result directly or indirectly in an abuse having regard to those provisions, other than this section, read as a whole. b) qu’elle entraînerait, directement ou indirectement, un abus dans l’application de ces dispositions compte non tenu du présent article lues dans leur ensemble. ...

This factor will be one of the factors considered in the granting of an extension of time to make submissions on costs, as more fully discussed in the next section of these reasons. [25]   The Judgment was dated August   8,   2017. ... The Respondent does not challenge that conclusion. [56]   However, the Respondent cites the principle that a settlement offer must address the issues underlying the appeal in order to be considered for costs purposes and cites a case decided by this Court, IPAX Canada Limited et al v The Queen, 2011   TCC   50, 2011  DTC 1077 (para   11) [IPAX]. ... It has also been considered in intellectual property litigation: Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Maple Leaf Meats Inc., 2002 FCA 417 (Maple Leaf Meats). [82]   In this appeal, the hearing lasted 4   days and involved three witnesses, including the Appellant and two expert witnesses, one called by the Appellant (Mr.   ...

If this argument were accepted, then all of the payroll department’s activities would be considered to have occurred in the course of the registrant’s commercial activity. ... However, before reaching a final conclusion, it considered other relevant factors. Specifically, it considered the nature of the respective obligations of the City of Calgary and the Province of Alberta under certain agreements, “having regard to the statutory context”. [34] [102]   After considering certain statutory provisions that applied to the City of Calgary’s operation of its transit system and after considering certain agreements between the City of Calgary and the Province of Alberta, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed its earlier conclusion that the City of Calgary only made a single supply. ...