Search - considered

There is nothing in the language of this provision that explicitly provides that the separate existence of the two corporations (Emergis and NSULC) is to be ignored and that the income of NSULC is to be considered to be the income of Emergis. ...

Turning to the neglect or carelessness branch of s. 152(4)(a)(i), he stated: [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. ...

In denying the applications, the CRA delegate considered that a high degree of care and diligence was to be expected given the sophistication of the Bank and EY, and that this had not been demonstrated in the circumstances. ...

The Crown considered that the PSLP business losses were deemed to be limited partnership losses of MLP – which meant that they were effectively trapped in MLP given that s. 111 (and, thus, the ability to deduct limited partnership losses under s. 111(1)(e)) was only available to a taxpayer and not to a partnership. ...

In allowing the Crown’s cross-appeal for those years, Dawson JA stated (at paras 75, 77 and 82): [T]he Tax Court’s concern about “when or how far into the future an advantage … will be considered as attributable to” abusive transactions did not justify a restrictive interpretation of the definition of advantage. … The ability to waive an advantage tax and reset an individual’s unused TFSA contribution room are the mechanisms intended to address the future impact of abusive transactions. … The anti-avoidance purpose of sections 207.01 and 207.05 supports a broad interpretation of the definition of “advantage”. … [W]hile the increase in value in the TFSA in 2010 and 2012 was directly attributable to the performance of the shares held in the TFSA each year, it was indirectly attributable to the swap transactions which increased the number of shares held in the TFSA and their value. ...

After noting (at para. 55) that the Canadian Pioneer case ([1980] 1 S.C.R) had found that the meaning of “banking … should be based on a formal, institutional approach rather than a substantive approach, in the sense of the functions of banking” so “that the use of the term ‘bank’ in the name of the entity, and whether it is regulated, are factors to be considered, rather than the actual activities that are conducted”, Woods JA found that the Tax Court had erred in finding that there was an implied requirement in “banking” that the receipt side of the business have an element of competition and that “the exclusion does not apply if a business simply manages its own funds “ (para. 57) and, indeed “Parliament has not explicitly required competition as an element of the foreign bank exclusion” para. 60). ...

It follows that excluding an instrument from the ambit of the word debt simply because the amount which can ultimately be claimed will only be known when the term expires would effectively mean that Parliament has spoken in vain in providing for a “debt […] that may reasonably be considered to derive its value […] from portfolio investments”. ...