Search - considered

The University site, while subject to the trust, could not in any sense be considered as part of the trading stock of the company, as the 905 lots undoubtedly were. ... In the Steel Barrel case (supra), the Master of the Rolls considered an argument on behalf of the Crown that if a company acquired stock in consideration of the issue of fully paid up shares to the vendor, such stock for the purpose of ascertaining the company’s profits should be treated as having been acquired for nothing, with the result that when the stock is sold the Revenue is entitled to treat the whole of the purchase money obtained on the sale as a profit. ...

The cases seem to promote the idea that as long as the repairs were done to preserve or conserve the asset and not to create a new asset then the repairs will be considered current expenses. 36         An expenditure that merely maintains an asset or restores it to its original condition is a deductible current expense.... [53]     Counsel claimed that the decisions regarding classification of expenses related to capital and income were made in a just and reasonable manner based on knowledge and belief of the Appellant and its main advisors. That is why expenses related to asphalting the lot or moving large trucks were considered as current expenses. [54]     Counsel for the Appellant argues that, in the case of the invoice at Tab K, it was for repairs to existing equipment. ...

Properties Inc. proceeded to demolish the shopping centre; 14. the total of the proceeds of disposition of $3,000,000 was assigned by the defendant to the land, which had a value of at least $8,000,000, while the value of the building on August 29, 1986 was nil; 15. in its tax return for its 1986 taxation year the defendant considered that all the proceeds of disposition were attributable to the land; 16. the Minister of National Revenue admitted that the allocation of the proceeds of disposition by the defendant was correct, in view of the respective values of the land and building at the time of disposition on August 29, 1986; 17. the Minister of National Revenue also set the fair market value as of December 31, 1971 at $1,804,209 for the land and $1,595,791 for the building, that is the same amounts as those used by the defendant in its tax return for the taxation year at issue; 18. based on the foregoing amounts for the allocation of the proceeds of disposition and the fair market value as of December 31, 1971 the defendant, in its tax return for its 1986 taxation year, reported a final loss on the disposition of the building amounting to $981,240 and a capital gain on the disposition of the land of $1,195,791; 19. relying on subsection 13(21.1) of the Income Tax Act, the Minister of National Revenue disallowed the final loss of $981,240 claimed by the defendant and reduced the taxable capital gain reported by $490,620; 20. on August 30, 1988 the Minister of National Revenue issued a reassessment for the defendant's 1986 taxation year and made the changes mentioned in the preceding paragraph. ... From its point of view the contractual obligation was absolute, and the contractual obligation must be considered and the word "agreement" interpreted from its point of view. ...

It follows that the value of a site, in the regional market, diminishes in direct proportion to the diminishing attractiveness of each factor which is considered so that at the lower end of the range of attractiveness the value of a site for a regional shopping centre will likely approach the value of a site for a local or district shopping centre. ... Tannahill informed us 40 acres of this land were useable and that the land was to be considered as raw land. ...

—For the purpose of subparagraph 95(l)(b)(v) of the Act, the amount prescribed to be the deductible loss of a foreign affiliate of a taxpayer for a taxation year and the five immediately preceding taxation years is the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of (a) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is the amount, if any, for each of the five immediately preceding taxation years of the affiliate during which it was a foreign affiliate of the taxpayer or of a person described in any of subparagraphs 95(2)(f)(iv) to (vii) of the Act, by which (i) the aggregate of the amounts determined under subparagraphs 95(1)(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Act in respect of the affiliate for that preceding year exceeds (ii) the aggregate of the amounts determined under subparagraphs 95(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act in respect of the affiliate for that preceding year, and (b) the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of (i) each amount determined under clause 5907(l)(c)(ii)(A) and subparagraphs 5907(1)(c)(iii) and (iv) in respect of an exempt loss of the affiliate for those years, and (ii) each amount determined under clause 5907(1)(j)(ii)(A) in respect of taxable loss of the affiliate for those years but not including any amount included in the affiliate’s exempt loss for those years exceeds the aggregate of (iii) each amount determined under subparagraphs 5907(1)(b)(ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) in respect of the exempt earnings of the affiliate for those years less such portion of the income or profits tax payable to the government of a country for any of those years by the affiliate as may reasonably be regarded as payable in respect of an amount referred to in subparagraph 5907(1)(b)(iii) or clause (l)(b)(iv)(B), and (iv) each amount determined under clauses 5907(1)(i)(ii)(A) and (C) in respect of the taxable earnings of the affiliate for those years but not including any amount included in the affiliate’s exempt earnings for those years exceeds the aggregate of (c) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is an amount deducted by virtue of subparagraph 95(l)(b)(v) of the Act by the taxpayer or a person described in any of subparagraphs 95(2)(f)(iv) to (vii) of the Act in respect of any of the five immediately preceding taxation years of the affiliate to the extent that such amount relates to a loss for any of those years and assuming that no amount is deductible under that subparagraph for any year until the maximum amount for preceding years has been deducted; and (d) where a payment has been received by the foreign affiliate that may reasonably be considered to relate to a payment described in subsection 5907(1.3) made by another foreign affiliate of the taxpayer in respect of a loss, or any portion thereof, included in computing the amount referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) in respect of the affiliate, the amount of such loss or portion thereof. ... The former admonishes against a "results oriented" approach to statutory interpretation, and the latter disapproves of a "purely mechanical one, focused on the method, the means devised to achieve the goal" and recommends that the approach be "a functional one" and that "the scheme must be considered as a whole, taking into account the intent of the legislation, its object and spirit and what it actually accomplishes". ...

Per Consent the proportionate division of the pension annuity as paid by JCR is considered to be a division of marital property; d.             ... Both the Applicant and the Respondent acknowledge that this aforesaid division is a division of marital property and is not to be considered spousal support by either the Applicant or the Respondent. ...

  [31]         In Hagon v The Queen, 99 DTC 336, Justice Bowie considered the effects of a conviction from a plea bargain in criminal proceedings on a subsequent proceeding at paragraphs 9 to 11:     [9]  It is well settled that a conviction under the Income Tax Act may, in proper circumstances, give rise to an estoppel in later civil proceedings under the Act: Van Rooy v. ...   [33]         In Pontarini, at paragraph 23, Justice Boyle concluded that the taxpayer’s guilty plea to tax evasion was only one factor that should be considered and weighed by the Court. ...

Nonetheless, the Appellant argues that an alleged violation of the Jarvis principles, albeit prior to the Jarvis decision, and notwithstanding no argument was made thereon in subsequent trials and appeals, including the final jury trial in 2010 and its subsequent appeal, should be considered as a live issue before this Court, since it was not dealt with beforehand and hence the Respondent’s argument of issue estoppel cannot apply to the undetermined Charter issues that are still live before the Court.   ... If the Appellant himself did not see fit to raise the Charter issue before the competent Court in the first place, especially when the basis for his defence in his tax evasion trials was that he had no intent to commit tax evasion but only intended to protest what he considered unlawful government action or the constitutional validity of the Federal Government’s power to impose and collect taxes, then I certainly do not see how it can now be raised in the first instance here. ...

Therefore as at January 1, 1962 Robert became the beneficial owner of all the shares indicated and for the purposes of these appeals he may be considered as the registered owner which he did in fact become on July 6, 1964 after reaching his majority. ... He had made provision for Elaine so that only Robert’s future remained to be considered. ...

Rather, its purpose truly was to settle a breach of contract action. [17]          The Court held that since an eligible capital expenditure as defined in paragraph 14(5)(b) did not include a current deductible expense and since Naden, the actual payor, had incurred a current deductible expense by making the damages payment, Johnson, as notional payor, should also be considered to have made a current deductible expenditure. ... The agreements provided that the cost of these services would be considered as pre-payments of realty taxes that would otherwise be levied by the city. ...