Search - considered

This will enable you to present additional representations and/or documentation to our office to ensure that all facts are fully considered prior to any further action. ... “Canadian exploration expense” of a taxpayer means any expense incurred after May 6, 1974 that is               (a)         any expense including a geological, geophysical or geochemical expense incurred by the taxpayer (other than an expense incurred in drilling or completing an oil or gas well or in building a temporary access road to, or preparing a site in respect of, any such well) for the purpose of determining the existence, location, extent or quality of an accumulation of petroleum or natural gas (other than a mineral resource) in Canada,               (b)         any expense (other than an expense incurred in drilling or completing an oil or gas well or in building a temporary access road to, or preparing a site in respect of, any such well) incurred by the taxpayer after March, 1985 for the purpose of bringing a natural accumulation of petroleum or natural gas (other than a mineral resource) in Canada into production and incurred prior to the commencement of the production (other than the production from an oil or gas well) in reasonable commercial quantities from such accumulation, including                           (i)         clearing, removing overburden and stripping, and                         (ii)        sinking a shaft or constructing an adit or other underground                                            entry,               (c)         any expense incurred before April, 1987 in drilling or completing an oil or gas well in Canada or in building a temporary access road to, or preparing a site in respect of, any such well,                         (i)         incurred by the taxpayer in the year, or                         (ii)        incurred by the taxpayer in any previous year and included by the taxpayer in computing the taxpayer's Canadian development expense for a previous taxation year,                         if, within six months after the end of the year, the drilling of the well is completed and                           (iii)       it is determined that the well is the first well capable of production in commercial quantities from an accumulation of petroleum or natural gas (other than a mineral resource) not previously known to exist, or                         (iv)       it is reasonable to expect that the well will not come into production in commercial quantities within twelve months of its completion,             (d)         any expense incurred by the taxpayer after March, 1987 and in a taxation year of the taxpayer in drilling or completing an oil or gas well in Canada or in building a temporary access road to, or preparing a site in respect of, any such well if                           (i)         the drilling or completing of the well resulted in the discovery that a natural underground reservoir contains petroleum or natural gas, where                            (A)    before the time of the discovery, no person or partnership had discovered that the reservoir contained either petroleum or natural gas, and                            (B)    the discovery occurred at any time before six months after the end of the year,                         (ii)        the well is abandoned in the year or within six months after the end of the year without ever having produced otherwise than for specified purposes,                         (iii)       the period of 24 months commencing on the day of completion of the drilling of the well ends in the year, the expense was incurred within that period and in the year and the well has not within that period produced otherwise than for specified purposes, or                         (iv)       there has been filed with the Minister, on or before the day that is 6 months after the end of the taxation year of the taxpayer in which the drilling of the well was commenced, a certificate issued by the Minister of Natural Resources certifying that, on the basis of evidence submitted to that Minister, that Minister is satisfied that                            (A)    the total of expenses incurred and to be incurred in drilling and completing the well, in building a temporary access road to the well and in preparing the site in respect of the well will exceed $5,000,000, and                            (B)    the well will not produce, otherwise than for a specified purpose, within the period of 24 months commencing on the day on which the drilling of the well is completed,               (e)         any expense deemed by subsection (9) to be a Canadian exploration expense incurred by the taxpayer,               (f)         any expense incurred by the taxpayer (other than an expense incurred in drilling or completing an oil or gas well or in building a temporary access road to, or preparing a site in respect of, any such well) for the purpose of determining the existence, location, extent or quality of a mineral resource in Canada including any expense incurred in the course of                         (i)         prospecting,                         (ii)        carrying out geological, geophysical or geochemical                                                       surveys,                         (iii)       drilling by rotary, diamond, percussion or other methods, or                         (iv)       trenching, digging test pits and preliminary sampling,                         but not including                         (v)        any Canadian development expense, or                         (vi)       any expense that may reasonably be considered to be related to a mine that has come into production in reasonable commercial quantities or to be related to a potential or actual extension thereof,             (g)         any expense incurred by the taxpayer after November 16, 1978 for the purpose of bringing a new mine in a mineral resource in Canada into production in reasonable commercial quantities and incurred before the new mine comes into production in such quantities, including an expense for clearing, removing overburden, stripping, sinking a mine shaft or constructing an adit or other underground entry,               (g. 1)     any Canadian renewable and conservation expense incurred by the taxpayer,               (h)         subject to section 66.8, the taxpayer's share of any expense referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (d) and (f) to (g. 1) incurred by a partnership in a fiscal period thereof, if at the end of the period the taxpayer is a member of the partnership, or                         (i)         any expense referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (g) incurred by the taxpayer pursuant to an agreement in writing with a corporation, entered into before 1987, under which the taxpayer incurred the expense solely as consideration for shares, other than prescribed shares, of the capital stock of the corporation issued to the taxpayer or any interest in such shares or right thereto,       CITATION:                                       2005TCC803   COURT FILE NO.:                            2003-797(IT)G, 2003-800(IT)G and                                                           2003-802(IT)G   STYLE OF CAUSE:                          Israel Chafetz, Donald Jordan and                                                           James Taylor and Her Majesty The Queen   PLACE OF HEARING:                     Vancouver, British Columbia   DATE OF HEARING:                       November 23 and 24, 2005   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:    The Honourable Justice Campbell J. ...

On the other hand in Bowater Power Co Ltd v MNR, [1971] CTC 818; 71 DTC 5469, Noël, ACJ said at pages 837-8 [5481]: I do not indeed feel that merely because the expenditure was made for the purpose of determining whether to bring into existence a capital asset, It should always be considered as a capital expenditure and, therefore, not deductible. ... Although the wording of the statute there under consideration differed from the wording of the legislation being considered here, it seems to me that some of the reasoning in the Hanover Agencies case is applicable here. ...

Malka insisted that those activities must be considered in an overall context. ... As to the tests on the devices developed in the United States which were observed in 1987, they lasted less than two hours and definitely cannot be considered as an activity of “systematic investigation”. ...

This sum of $500.00 is considered to be a capital item and is not paid to you as income. 8. ... Justice McNair of this Court considered both the Laferrière and the S/an decisions, and he is reported, at page 68, as expressing the following interpretation of subsection 96(1.1) of the Income Tax Act: In my opinion the plain and grammatical meaning of the words of section 96(1.1) of the Act are meant to apply to the situation where the members of a partnership have agreed to allocate a share of the income or loss of the partnership to a taxpayer who has ceased to be a member of the partnership but who is nevertheless deemed to be a continuing member thereof solely for the purpose of the allocation of such income or loss as initially agreed by all the partners. ...

I believe he never received the payment either in cash or in any other manner that can legally be considered payment or partial payment. ... This document cannot be considered as anything other than a statement by Corners that it still owes the money to plaintiff. ...

In all of the circumstances of a close, sharing family so amply demonstrated in the evidence, the plaintiff could be considered to be acting solely on his own behalf only if he had obtained the prize stealthily and only if he had taken out the term deposits secretively. ... This maxim also lies at the root of the equitable doctrines governing precatory words, mortgages, penalties and forfeitures, all of which are fully considered in the later chapters of this book. ...

The person may indeed have been born in Canada, maintained their Canadian citizenship and passport, and even have family in Canada but still sever all relevant ties with Canada and thus, be considered a non-resident. [16]     I mentioned above that in my view the appellant had demolished the five key assumptions (x), (y), (z), (ll) and (nn). [17]     During the years in question the St. ... 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. [29]     The appellant has distinguished himself from the Hauser case with regard to the material facts. ...

The question of whether the Minister could issue a valid reassessment with the consent of the taxpayer after the normal reassessment period (now three years but formerly four years) was considered by the Federal Court in an appeal by Canadian Marconi Co.: Canadian Marconi Co. v. ... The Queen, 140 N.R. 393, 92 D.T.C. 6231, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the validity of a particular assessment when the Minister issued a subsequent assessment which was vacated by court order. ...

The witness also said that at one point during the currency of the loan he was asked to make a report on the reasons for the reduced state of the appellant company’s earnings which reduction was in part due to the fact that it was receiving no income from the use of the borrowed money but was paying interest on its own loan from Caus Investment and Finance Company Limited at six per cent and that when the decision was made that the fillings should be transferred to the appellant it was considered that since the appellant would be receiving the revenues from the marketing of the fillings it would be amply reimbursed for the use of the money during the time it was on loan to World T. and I. ... To extend the statutory deduction in the converse case would add to the anomaly and open the way for borrowed capital to become involved in a complication of remote effects that cannot be considered as having been contemplated by Parliament. ...

Since the ITC provisions are not at issue, they have not been reproduced. 248(1) […] “scientific research and experimental development” means systematic investigation or search that is carried out in a field of science or technology by means of experiment or analysis and that is (a) basic research, namely, work undertaken for the advancement of scientific knowledge without a specific practical application in view, (b) applied research, namely, work undertaken for the advancement of scientific knowledge with a specific practical application in view, or (c) experimental development, namely, work undertaken for the purpose of achieving technological advancement for the purpose of creating new, or improving existing, materials, devices, products or processes, including incremental improvements thereto, and, in applying this definition in respect of a taxpayer, includes (d) work undertaken by or on behalf of the taxpayer with respect to engineering, design, operations research, mathematical analysis, computer programming, data collection, testing or psychological research, where the work is commensurate with the needs, and directly in support, of work described in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) that is undertaken in Canada by or on behalf of the taxpayer, but does not include work with respect to (e) market research or sales promotion, (f) quality control or routine testing of materials, devices, products or processes, (g) research in the social sciences or the humanities, (h) prospecting, exploring or drilling for, or producing, minerals, petroleum or natural gas, (i) the commercial production of a new or improved material, device or product or the commercial use of a new or improved process, (j) style changes, or (k) routine data collection; 37(1)     Scientific research and experimental development – Where a taxpayer carried on a business in Canada in a taxation year, there may be deducted in computing the taxpayer’s income from the business for the year such amount as the taxpayer claims not exceeding the amount, if any, by which the total of (a) the total of all amounts each of which is an expenditure of a current nature made by the taxpayer in the year or in a preceding taxation year ending after 1973 (i) on scientific research and experimental development carried on in Canada, directly undertaken by or on behalf of the taxpayer, and related to a business of the taxpayer, […] 37(8) Interpretation – In this section (a) references to expenditures on or in respect of scientific research and  experimental development […] (ii) where the references occur other than in subsection (2), include only (A) expenditures incurred by a taxpayer in a taxation year (other than a taxation year for which the taxpayer has elected under clause (B)), each of which is (I) an expenditure of a current nature all or substantially all of which was attributable to the prosecution, or to the provision of premises, facilities or equipment for the prosecution, of scientific research and experimental development in Canada, (II) an expenditure of a current nature directly attributable, as determined by regulation, to the prosecution, or to the provision of premises, facilities or equipment for the prosecution, of scientific research and experimental development in Canada, or (III) an expenditure of a capital nature that at the time it was incurred was for the provision of premises, facilities or equipment, where at that time it was intended 1. that it would be used during all or substantially all of its operating time in its expected useful life for, or 2. that all or substantially all of its value would be consumed in, the prosecution of scientific research and experimental development in Canada, and (B) where a taxpayer has elected in prescribed form and in accordance with subsection (10) for a taxation year, expenditures incurred by the taxpayer in the year each of which is (I) an expenditure of a current nature for, and all or substantially all of which was attributable to, the lease of premises, facilities or equipment for the prosecution of scientific research and experimental development in Canada, other than an expenditure in respect of general purpose office equipment or furniture, (II) an expenditure in respect of the prosecution of scientific research and experimental development in Canada directly undertaken on behalf of the taxpayer, (III) an expenditure described in subclause (A)(III), other than an expenditure in respect of general purpose office equipment or furniture, (IV) that portion of an expenditure made in respect of an expense incurred in the year for salary or wages of an employee who is directly engaged in scientific research and experimental development in Canada that can reasonably be considered to relate to such work having regard to the time spent by the employee thereon, and, for this purpose, where that portion is all or substantially all of the expenditure, that portion shall be deemed to be the amount of the expenditure, (V) the cost of materials consumed or transformed in the prosecution of scientific research and experimental development in Canada, or (VI) ½ of any other expenditure of a current nature in respect of the lease of premises, facilities or equipment used primarily for the prosecution of scientific research and experimental development in Canada, other than an expenditure in respect of general purpose office equipment or furniture; […] V.      ... FHMS chose not to pursue clause (II) during argument, but the Crown did address it in its submissions. [31]         Despite the abandonment of the clause (II) argument by FHMS, after the hearing I concluded that this provision should be considered and invited the parties to make further submissions. ...