Search - considered

The Queen, 2021 TCC 5 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Business Source/Reasonable Expectation of Profit Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 3- Paragraph 3(a)- Business Source/Reasonable Expectation of Profit rental unit was a source of income even when not rentable due to on-going renovations In rejecting the Crown’s submission that the repair expenditures were not deductible because the rental unit at issue was not rented out during the year in question because it was being reconditioned, and then took a while to rent out at a substantially increased rent, Masse DJ noted (at para. 23) that “a property does not need to be generating income at every stage of operation in order to be considered a source of income.” ...

The King, 2025 TCC 16-- summary under Subsection 248(26) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(26) deeming of taxpayer liability to be an obligation Before going on to find that advances made to an employee as a performance award constituted loans and after paraphrasing s. 248(26), Ouimet J stated (at para. 35): Consequently, for a taxpayer who either becomes liable to repay money they borrowed or becomes liable to pay an amount (other than interest) as consideration for any property they acquired, the liability shall be considered to be an “obligation” for the purposes of applying the relevant provisions of the ITA. ...

Miller J: “had concluded that a reassessment will be considered valid if the intention of the Minister at the time of [its] making…was to pursue verification;” and had found that that “there is no law…to the effect that a protective assessment is invalid if issued for the sole purpose of leaving the door open to conduct or continue an audit” (- and she went on to indicate that Karda was similiar); and noted (at para. 129) that it was necessary to issue the reassessments in order to implement the accord with RTA respecting its directly incurred SR&ED expenditures. ... Miller J. … explained that in the Anchor Pointe decision the Federal Court of Appeal considered the correctness of the assessment as the product of the examination, and not the validity of the assessment as the process. … Accordingly, the reassessments were valid. ...

. … … I would have considered …relevant … the jurisdiction in which the owners of the fleets were based; the location where regular maintenance on the vehicles was conducted; the jurisdiction in which the drivers were licensed; and the location where the vehicles were kept when not in use. I may also have considered the reason why the vehicles left Canada. … Words and Phrases risks ordinarily situated ...

In the alternative, Smith J considered whether GAAR should apply even if the units in the Income Funds were qualified investments. ... After finding that the Minister’s assessment of the taxpayer respecting the RRSP income pursuant to s. 56(2) was unsupported by the wording of that provision, Smith J went on to indicate that he would have upheld the reassessments of the taxpayer in those amounts on the basis of the GAAR, but for this resulting “in a duplication of the tax which the Minister has also sought to impose on the RRSP Trust pursuant to subsection 146(10.1)” – which could not “be considered ‘reasonable in the circumstances’ as contemplated in subsection 245(5)” (para. 623). ...

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). ... Pizzitelli J then stated (at para. 104): [T]he Appellants did not seek an independent valuation and cannot be said to have thoughtfully, deliberately and carefully considered whether the proposed IPO would affect the share price. ...

The present charges were similar to those considered in Ontario Home Builders' Association v. ...

Hogan J. found that the general inclusion of "superannuation or pension benefits" at the beginning of s. 56(1)(a)(i) did not mean that clauses (A)-(C.1) were confined to only amounts that were superannuation or pension benefits- in the present case, clause (C.1) meant that the taxpayer was required to include in income an amount paid in redeeming a foreign retirement arrangement, regardless of whether that amount would normally be considered a superannuation or pension benefit (para. 35). ...

Even though that municipality results from a merger of three former cities, the meals eaten within it cannot, in my view, be considered to have been eaten away from the municipality where the employer's establishment was located, or away from the metropolitan area where it was located. ...

Lamarre Proulx J. indicated that this approach of the Minister amounted "to asserting that a taxpayer may have to pay back in a subsequent year an ITC that he or she claimed as a deduction from tax payable for a year and that was considered in the assessment for that year" and that, accordingly, this approach was not permitted. ...