Search - considered

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. ...

The substance of its activities must be considered. The activities in issue are all ones in which the plaintiff produces a specialized product for its customers as well as providing certain services connected therewith. ... Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance — Class 29 Accelerated capital cost allowance is allowed with respect to property falling within Class 29 of Schedule B to the Act, that is: (i) property... in class 8 (ii) an oil or water storage tank, (iii) a powered industrial lift truck, The disputed categories to be considered as far as the taxpayer’s property is concerned are: (1) structures that are manufacturing or processing machinery or equipment;* [1] (2) a tangible capital asset not included in another class in the schedule;! ...

Nor can I assume that subsection 14(2), following as it does immediately upon subsection 14(1) which was being considered by the Federal Court of Appeal, could have been overlooked by both the court and by counsel. ... Notwithstanding the extensive amendments to section 14 after the years considered in that case, notwithstanding the fact that the Federal Court of Appeal was dealing with a simple inclusion in income under subsection 14(1) as it then read and not with a computation of “cumulative eligible capital” in the context of a sale and cessation of an entire business to which subsection 24(1) applies, notwithstanding the fact that the interpretation creates a deduction in 1984 that exceeds by many multiples the economic loss actually suffered by the appellant on the sale of the goodwill and projects income into later years long after the business has ceased (and into years that, incidentally, are statute-barred) I am bound under the rule of stare decisis to apply and follow the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision. [5] No distinction between that case and this one, either in the legislation or in the facts, would justify my attempting to find a basis of distinguishing it in order to achieve a reasonable result. ...