Search - considered

. … While he was entitled to express his views about the impact of the CRA’s error and the fact that relief should be considered in his reasons, he should have limited himself, in the judgment, to dismissing the appeal. … ...

., 2004 FCA 131, Near JA stated: (at para 4): … [W]hile not binding, opinions of the WCO must “at least be considered” in determining the classification of goods imported into Canada…. ...

The agreement was not intended to be a compromise settlement of the type considered in Galway. ...

Iris considered that the requirement in ETA s. 229(1) that net refund claims be paid “with all due dispatch” meant that it should be paid right away rather than awaiting the conclusion of the audit, and appealed the dismissal of its motion in the Federal Court, for an interim mandatory injunction to compel the payment of $62.3 million in GST/HST refunds, to the Court of Appeal. ...

He considered, as did the Tax Court below, that the Court could exercise its discretion to go beyond the question posed and review the combined effect of ss. 207.05 and 207.06. ...

D’Auray J below had considered this approach to be unfair and anomalous, since if the company had instead lain in the grass and been assessed by CRA for the unreported GST, CRA would have been required under s. 296(2.1) to allow the (more than) offsetting unclaimed rebate amounts, so that no interest or late-filing penalties could have been assessed. ...

In the circumstances of this case, it considered it inefficient and procedurally unfair to do so. ...

Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458 that a new argument cannot be considered at the appellate level “unless all the relevant evidence is in the record,” and in then finding that the taxpayers’ new argument should not be entertained, stated (at para. 25) that “if the new issue had been raised in the Tax Court it is quite possible that further light ‘could have been thrown upon it’.” ...

Monaghan JA found that the Tax Court had made no reversible error and rejected, among other Carvest submissions, that “because the Tax Court characterized the property to be valued as condominium units, rather than leased apartments, it considered itself bound to use the direct comparison method and the individual condominium resale market,” noting that “the Tax Court understood the units were rented but also qualified as “residential condominium units” for purposes of the Excise Tax Act” (para. 26) and stated further (at para. 32) that she was “ satisfied that the Tax Court chose the direct comparison valuation method because it decided it was the appropriate method in this case for the reasons it explained….” ...

However …[b]y adding an exclusion for a supply of property (which Parliament did by adding paragraph (r.5)), Parliament must have been concerned that, without the addition of this exclusion, certain supplies of property could be considered to be a financial service. ...