Search - considered

Watson D.J.TC held that although the outright acceptance of this offer by the taxpayer may very well have resulted in him being considered to have received a retiring allowance or a s. 56(2) benefit, no such entitlement to a retiring allowance occurred. ...

Watson D.J.TC held that although the outright acceptance of this offer by the taxpayer may very well have resulted in him being considered to have received a retiring allowance or a s. 56(2) benefit, no such entitlement to a retiring allowance occurred. ...

The Queen, 2006 DTC 2642, 2006 TCC 230-- summary under Paragraph 251(1)(c) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 251- Subsection 251(1)- Paragraph 251(1)(c) parties pursued their own interests Before going on to find that the taxpayer had purchased a sublicence of software from a person with whom he was dealing at arm's length (and rejecting a submission of the Crown that the fact that the software was sold for a fixed price without negotiation by the taxpayer was evidence of non-arm's length dealing) Bell J. stated (at p. 2654): "The fact that the parties considered that they had entered into a mutually beneficial relationship when, at the same time, they were pursuing their own individual interests and were free, without either of them being controlled by the other, to enter or not enter into that relationship means that they were dealing with each other at arm's length as a matter of fact. ...

Since the valuation question was not considered or raised by the Minister until later, the onus respecting value was on the Minister. ...

Lamarre TCJ. stated (at p. 1883): "Testing would not normally be considered as an eligible SR&ED activity. ...

Boyle J agreed with the Minister that this agreement could not be considered a licence of "equipment" for the purpose of the taxpayer's claims for SR&ED credits. ...

., after reviewing various authorities on issue estoppel, stated (at p. 1735): "On the basis of these authorities, even though on the face of the judgment of the earlier decision it is not obvious that the precise points now put in issue were specifically put to or considered by the judge in the prior proceeding, if they were essential to the determination reached by him a later court cannot retry the issue. ...

Rip CJ also noted with approval the principle in Imperial Tobacco that "communications between employees of a company that include legal advice provided by the corporation's lawyer will be considered privileged. ...

The ordinary meaning of the word "liable" ("responsible at law"), the contrasting use of the terms "liable" and "payable" in the relevant provisions and the fact that this interpretation was consistent with an interpretation that the enactment of s. 162(2.1) was intended by Parliament to put some teeth into the filing requirements for non-resident corporations, suggested that a corporation would be considered to be "liable to a penalty" under s. 162(1) even if such penalty was nil. ...

Hogan J. stated (at para. 16): [T]he real question is whether subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) applies to a taxation year that is otherwise time-barred when the facts considered incorrect are presented because the taxpayer interpreted the circumstances to favour the non-taxation theory since they fall in the grey zone of tax law. ...