Search - considered

However, Bocock J. further indicated obiter that he would have considered the payment to have been paid otherwise than as consideration for "the supply" under the EPA, i.e., it was not consideration for the supply thereunder of electricity. ...

Regarding the position of the Minister that amounts that do not constitute actual income earned ("phantom income") should not be considered as safe income, Dussault T.C.J. indicated that this position failed to reflect that income for tax purposes is not a logical and coherent concept that reflects reality and that the wording of s. 55(2) (and, in particular, s. 55(5)(c)) "does not permit any such orientation in the name of a perhaps desirable but non-existent realism" (p. 685). ...

The question whether a de facto director could be liable for remittance failures had not previously been considered. ...

The question whether a de facto director could be liable for remittance failures had not previously been considered. ...

Revenue Quebec considered that the credit note had not been issued "within a reasonable time," as required by s. 232(3). ...

Therefore, for U.S. tax purposes, GL&V was considered to have made loans directly to, and received interest directly from, Holdings. ...

" After noting (at para. 40) that "in an income tax context, the phrase ‘carrying on business' is considered to require more activity than a single isolated transaction," she went on (at para. 41) to find that there was "no reason to depart from this reasoning for purposes of the ETA," so that the sale by NN Life also did not constitute a business. ...

After noting that in MRT, ESG and Rockmore, 75 DTC 5224, aff'd 76 DTC 6156 "Walsh J. considered that each of the taxpayers were making loans to high-risk borrowers, investigated potential borrowers carefully, and negotiated extensively over terms, indicating that an active business of moneylending was being carried on" (para. 40), Rip J stated (at para. 42): All three corporations operated on a very small scale, with Rockmore, for example, holding only three loans in 1972. ...

[emphasis in original] Taylor T.C.J. considered himself to be bound to choose only as between the two change-of-use dates advanced by the two parties, being January 1, 1973 and May 28, 1975, and indicated (at p. 1853) that the latter date was “a more acceptable date.” ...

The donation issue was common to several files, and the Minister indicated that the objection would be considered after the common issue was resolved. ...