Search - considered

They must be considered in the light of the basic premises, that everyone must have a fiscal residence somewhere and that it is quite possible for an individual to be simultaneously resident in more than one place for tax purposes. and later on the same page: I am satisfied that had the defendant been asked, while in France, where he regularly, normally or customarily lived, Canada must have been the answer. ... He never filed income tax returns in the United States although he considered himself a resident there. ...

NAR first considered establishing its own trucking arm to carry goods from Waterways to Mildred Lake but by early 1974 had decided to contract out the trucking aspect. ... If NAR and its contractors are making use of any facilities affected under this sub-section, such use will be considered when establishing the unrecovered fixed cost and the out-of- pocket cost cannot be agreed upon, it shall be established by arbitration under the provisions of section 8.07. ...

It was the considered opinion of the partners that there must be a clean break with the past and that in the future all such requests and consultations should be with a corporation. ... The persons selected to be advised of those services were persons considered likely to have a need for them. ...

Further, there was no alternative argument made as to the reasonableness of the expenditure as a site investigation expenditure. [24]     Instead the Respondent argued that the necessary conclusion to be drawn from the facts was that the subject amount whenever paid was paid for the benefit of the related company and cannot or should not be considered to have been incurred for another purpose. ... To ensure a deduction on the cash basis and to ensure against the denial of the expense under paragraph 18(1)(b) requires that paragraph 20(1)(dd) applies as asserted by the Appellant. [26]     I will now consider paragraph 20(1)(dd). [27]     The statutory framework that needs to be considered is as follows:                 18. (1) In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or property no deduction shall be made in respect of (a) an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business or property; (b) an outlay, loss or replacement of capital, a payment on account of capital or an allowance in respect of depreciation, obsolescence or depletion except as expressly permitted by this Part; 20. (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), (b) and (h), in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from a business or property, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto          ... ...

The scheme of the Act, with respect to capital gains and losses, as I undertand it, simply does not permit that entities or groups of different types of properties be considered as such. ... Each tangible asset of a business has an independent existence of its own; it is true that a particular one may have less value when considered apart from the group; but this does not take away from the fact that each exists independently and can be assessed separately. ...

It became clear in the cross-examination of Mr Jacobs that the Crown was taking the position the challenged expenses, though considered by the tax department as benefits conferred upon an officer, by reason of their nature were still not deductible by the corporate accused as expenses made to gain income. ... In some cases it was apparent that expenses challenged related to periods of time between conventions considered to be legitimate business endeavours, however, no attempt was made by the Crown to show that in fact there could be no savings in costs by reason of that accused remaining in that area rather than returning to Calgary, a point acknoweledged by Mr Jacobs to be a legitimate business decision. ...

Bronfman Trust, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 32; [1987] 1 C.T.C. 117; 87 D.T.C. 5059, that it is the current use, rather than the original use, of borrowed funds which must be considered when determining if interest payments are deductible. ... The absence of documentary evidence or objective proof is not necessarily determinative of an issue of this nature, but is one element which must be considered in arriving at a proper finding. ...

., $228,289,375 borrowed and $280,987,312 paid out, measured by the value of common shares issued to holders). [6]              As far as I am aware, this is the first time that a Canadian court has considered this issue. [7]              For the reasons below, the conclusion that I have reached is that a foreign exchange gain was realized only with respect to the redemption, and not with respect to the conversions. [8]              In these reasons, dollar amounts are in Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted. ... Analysis General scheme of Act [38]         Traditionally, a foreign exchange gain or loss has been considered to be realized upon repayment of a debt denominated in foreign currency, even if there is no actual conversion of the borrowed money into Canadian dollars. ...

In recommending that an employee be designated as requiring as a condition of employment to own a motor vehicle and thereby having the privilege of opting for a monthly allowance plus mileage, the following criteria should be considered. ... Clause 7 is significant and reads as follows: The Department of Finance has advised the Civil Service Commission that due to the fact that the option: for monthly allowance plus mileage will be available to low mileage drivers and the additional fact that the monthly allowance is payable during vacation or leave periods up to a month, it is the opinion of the Department of National Revenue that the monthly allowance of $80.00 would be considered a taxable benefit. ...

The situation is almost identical to that considered in the case of Greig (Inspector of Taxes) v Ashton, [1956] 3 All ER 123 at 125, where Harman, J stated: The portion of the convention providing for double taxation relief with the United States appears in the Schedule to the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (USA) Order, 1946 (SR & C 1946 Nc 1327), of which art XIII(2) provides: “Subject to such provisions... as may be enacted in the United Kingdom, United States tax payable in respect of income from sources within the United States shall be allowed as a credit against any United Kingdom tax payable in respect of that income.’’ ... When paragraph 126(1)(a) is considered by itself or in isolation and without taking into account normal accounting practices or any other factors, it would seem to be more natural and normal to calculate the value of the tax in Canadian dollars at the rate of exchange in effect at the date of payment, although there is nothing in the section which actually requires this. ...