Search - considered

Miller J stated: … It is my view that in a GAAR appeal, draft documents prepared in the context of a taxpayer’s audit or considered by officials involved in or consulted during the audit and assessment of the taxpayer should be disclosed. ... Miller J found that most of the redacted portions did not have to be produced, including on the basis that there was no evidence that the particular document was considered by CRA during the audit. ...

In accepting this approach, Lafleur J stated (at para. 70, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he manager or supervisor who manages the conduct of the SR&ED and the employee who analyzes the results will be considered to be directly engaged in SR&ED. ... However, more general supervisory or management activities, as well as second or third level management or supervision, will generally not be considered in this regard. ...

The CRA technical advisor considered that each breakthrough made was transferrable from one product to the other so that most of the projects lacked technological uncertainty. ... Regarding two of the projects where the CRA technical advisor considered there to be insufficient documentation, Rossiter C.J stated (at para. 110): Documentary evidence is not mandatory. ...

The Queen, 2015 DTC 1008 [at at 43], 2014 TCC 324, aff'd 2016 FCA 130-- summary under Subsection 39(2); Subsection 261(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 39- Subsection 39(2) U.S. dollar principal of a convertible debenture should be considered on conversion to have been settled at the historical exchange rate when the conversion price was set Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 261- Subsection 261(2) U.S. dollar principal of a convertible debenture should be considered on conversion to have been settled at the historical exchange rate when the conversion price was set In 2002, the taxpayer ("Agnico") issued US-dollar denominated debentures which were convertible at the holders' option into common shares at a conversion price of U.S.$14 per share (or a conversion ratio of 71.429 per each U.S.$1,000 debenture). ... Agnico's alternative argument (at para. 43), that s. 51(1) "provides that on a conversion... there was no transaction that could give rise to a gain," was not considered. ...

After noting that section 79, which applied to this transaction, had the effect of transferring the accrued loss on the (bad) debt owing to the taxpayer by his brother on to the Debentures owing by Shoppers that the taxpayer acquired from his brother, Hershfield J. found that in order for this preservation of loss to occur, the income-producing purpose attaching to the original advances made by the taxpayer to Shoppers should be subsumed in the purpose of the taxpayer in acquiring the Debentures of his brother, with the result that the loss claimed by the taxpayer in respect of those acquired Debentures should be considered to satisfy the income-producing purpose test in s. 40(2)(g)(ii). Furthermore, even if it were necessary to consider the purpose of the taxpayer in acquiring the brother's Debentures without relating back to the previous transaction, the fact that the taxpayer took the action of obtaining an assignment of the Royal Bank's security "necessarily implies a belief that the Debenture itself had potential value" (para. 47) so that there might be considered to have been a subordinate, albeit faint hope, of income in respect of the acquired Debenture, which would have been sufficient to satisfy the test in s. 40(2)(g)(ii). ...

. … For tax purposes, a bare trust is considered a non-entity in the sense that a beneficiary as principal, is considered to deal directly with property through the trustee as agent or nominee…. … Since I have concluded that Dr. ...

It is not sufficient that a person be signing cheques for the corporation for him or her to be considered a "de facto" director. ... The assessment of a de facto director should be considered only in cases where a person is representing himself or herself as a director. ...

Kenny did not have to report the social assistance payments as income in Ireland, they should not be considered income for purposes of section 118.94,” and then stated (at para 12): I am unable to find anything in the legislation that provides that these foreign social assistance payments do not constitute income. After noting that, on this basis, the Canadian employment income was approximately 60% of the taxpayer’s income for 2014, he stated (at para 18-19): … [C]ases have relied on percentages as low as 76% to be considered substantially all. ...

The Queen, 2022 TCC 5-- summary under Subsection 147(3.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure)- Section 147- Subsection 147(3.1) a settlement offer not made on a principled basis should be ignored for cost award purposes The appellant, DTI claimed entitlement to substantial indemnity costs per Rule 147(3.1) on the basis that in its appeal, it had achieved greater success than that reflected in an offer to settle made by it, which would have reduced the assessed HST for the reporting periods at issue to $15,000, which was explained to represent approximately 50% of the Canadian portion of the total amount of HST at issue of $118,300 (relating also to supplies considered by DTI to have been made in the US). ... However, although the $4,000 amount of costs initially awarded was based on the Court’s Tariff B for party and party costs, he considered this to be on the “lean side,” and increased the award to $8,110, not only to reflect some missing items, but also because (para. 18): My judicial discretion as to costs does not require that I award costs on a tariff basis. ...

Wong J noted (at para. 17) that following 1994 amendments to s. 6(1)(b)(vii) and (vii.1) “an allowance for travel or motor vehicle expenses must be wholly reasonable in order to be excluded from employment income”, and conversely “where such an allowance is considered unreasonable and must therefore be included in income, travel or motor vehicle expenses may be deductible from income by virtue of paragraphs 8(1)(h) and (h.1)” (para. 18). ... If the allowance was instead considered under s. 6(1)(b)(vii.1), the allowance would be deemed unreasonable by virtue of s. 6(1)(b)(x), as Burnaby City Hall was “an arbitrary starting point” so that “the allowance was not based solely on the number of kilometres driven for an employment purpose” (para. 21). ...