Search - considered

In rejecting the appellants’ arguments that the Part III assessments were invalid because there was one assessment for multiple purported capital dividends and the assessments had not been issued “with all due dispatch,” Smith J stated (at paras 110, 111, 113 and 137): I agree with the Respondent that the requirement that the Minister “examine each election” and “assess the tax, if any”, as required by subsection 185(1) must be considered in light of subsections 152(3) and 152(8) and section 166. ...

These transactions depended in part on the appellants being considered to have acquired units of an income fund ("FMO") from another income fund ("TOM") (which in turn had purportedly acquired the FMO units from an RRSP in consideration for issuing TOM units to it) at a cost equaling the units’ FMV, followed immediately by a distribution to them of capital gains that had been realized by FMO – with that distribution not reducing the ACB of their units by virtue of s. 53(2)(h)(i.1)(A) and (B)((I). ...

Pizzitelli J considered this discount to be eminently fair to the taxpayers given his finding that, on the valuation date (April 1, 2006), the prospects for a successful IPO were high (and of the founders requiring the taxpayers to sell their shares back at the formula price, quite fanciful). ...

Hogan J stated (at para. 49): I fail to see how the doctrine of res judicata can apply when the provision of the law previously considered in an earlier decision no longer applies. ...

Technical uncertainty can be considered to be present where “the claimant may be fairly confident that the goals can be achieved, but it is uncertain which of several alternatives will work” (para. 35). ...

In finding that the base payments made in its 1999 to 2002 taxation years did not satisfy the requirement under s. 18(1)(a) of having been incurred for the purpose of producing income from the taxpayer’s business, Owen J stated (at para. 40) that an “expenditure of the income that has been determined for a taxation period cannot be incurred as part of the process of earning that income” and that it should be considered in this regard “that the base payment only arises after the conclusion of the producer’s income earning process in respect of potash subject to the base payment tax” (para. 66) given that “[t]o compute the amount of a base payment for a year, a producer must first compute its profits for that year” (para. 64) and that “Liability for a base payment will exist only in respect of potash that has been “sold or otherwise disposed of” by a producer … [i.e.,] potash … [that] is no longer capable of producing income for the producer” (para. 65). ...

Even if, after completion of the Facility, the supplies made to the residents were a single supply of health care services, it nonetheless should be considered that the Appellant satisfied the test in s. 191.1(2)(b) that “possession or use of at least 10% of the residential units in the complex is intended to be given for the purpose of their occupancy as a place of residence or lodging by …seniors,” as was implicitly accepted by the Appellant in treating itself as subject to the self-supply rule in s. 191(3). ...

He then intimated (at paras. 316-319) that he considered a tax benefit to be doubtful here since it was difficult to posit an alternative reasonable transaction under which dividends had instead been paid to the Barbcos but Husky had failed to withhold at the 15% Barbados rate and noted (at para. 317) that the "record shows that Husky withheld at the 15% rate on all dividends paid to the Barbcos" and that "Husky has no tax liability to reduce unless Husky fails to withhold at the applicable rate". ...

The LP claimed CCA in its 2007 taxation year on the basis that s. 13(31)(a) deemed it to have acquired the property on the first day of that taxation year: it considered that it was effectively deemed by s. 13(31)(a) to have a notional taxation year beginning on February 1, 2004 and ending on January 31, 2005, so that on the beginning of its 2007 taxation year it satisfied the test in s. 13(27)(b) that such time followed the end of a taxation year of more than 357 days which, in turn, followed the taxation year in which the taxpayer had acquired the property. ...

In finding that Harvard Properties and NH Properties, were not dealing with each other at arm’s length, Boyle J stated (at paras. 155, 161): Given the agreement for Abacus to pay a premium to the co-owners to purchase the co-owners’ interests … the steps and the amounts in the series of transactions cannot be considered to reflect ordinary commercial dealings. … Harvard Properties, Abacus and NH Properties clearly acted together to dictate [the] Newcos’ actions from their inception and throughout the closing of this series of transactions. ...