Search - considered

The present Acceptance of Offer to Sell is open for your approval not later than June 7th, 1963, at 5:00 o’clock pm after which time it shall be considered null and void and nonexistent. ... The witness said he had seen the first document (Ex A-16) which George Richstone had submitted in respect of their original offer to sell (Ex A-15) and, although the said Exhibit A-16 had contained restrictive covenants which had not appeared in the initial offer (Ex A-15) and had allocated a separate amount of consideration to shares and rights and had ascribed another specific amount as consideration in respect of the restrictive covenants, he had considered it as nothing more than a matter of form for selling the shares and rights “because I only had one thing in mind—to sell our shares and get out”’. ...

In examining the “taxpayer's whole course of conduct", various courts have considered the following factors: (a) the number and repetition of similar transactions by the taxpayer,* [1] (b) the circumstances surrounding disposal of the property, [2] + and (c) the intent or motivation of the taxpayer at the time the property was purchased. ... Without further particulars, this is only one factor to be considered among others. ...

Jurchison [5] considered the impact of evidence in violation of the taxpayer's Charter rights. ... If the search and seizure under section 231.3 of the Act was a violation of the Appellant's rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter and the information was fundamental to the making of the assessment, subsections 24(1) and (2) of the Charter must be considered and they read as follows: 24(1)        Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. 24(2)        Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. ...

However, if the asset is completely destroyed, then the entire compensation payment qualifies as a capital receipt since an asset’s profitability is one element to be considered in assessing the asset’s capital value. ... As stated in London & Thames Haven, an asset’s profitability is an element to be considered in assessing its capital value. ...

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. ...