Search - considered

Before concluding that Canadian premises of PanCan were not a fixed base of the taxpayer, Sharlow J.A. indicated that the factors to be considered included "the actual use made of the premises... whether and by what legal right the person exercised or could not exercise control over the premises, and the degree to which the premises were objectively identified with the person's business", and noted that the taxpayer had access to the offices of PanCan only during PanCan's office hours and only for the purpose of providing services required by the contract and that he had no right to use the offices as a base for the operation of his own business. ...

Having failed to take that obvious and simple step, she cannot claim to have considered the matter thoughtfully, deliberately and carefully as a wise and prudent person would have done. ...

The Queen, 86 DTC 6364 (FCTD) could no longer be considered good law and went on to state (at p. 6083) that "you cannot treat a non-compensatory receipt in the same manner as a compensatory one simply because both arise from the same transaction". ...

Neither party had considered the written agreement to have ever been cancelled. ...

Neither party had considered the written agreement to have ever been cancelled. ...

The necessity to determine primary purpose implies that there is more than one purpose and that the transaction is to be considered as a whole. ...

It was reasoned that the mere holding of inventory does not constitute a use of the property for an income-producing purpose in the context of considering a conversion of depreciable property to inventory (or vice versa) – whereas inventory should be considered to be income-producing property in the context of a conversion of personal-use property to inventory, or vice versa. ...

Canada (National Revenue), 2016 FCA 94-- summary under Charitable Organization Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 149.1- Subsection 149.1(1)- Charitable Organization expending 70% of revenues on fund-raising and undue benefits inconsistent with wholly-devoted test Before dismissing the appellant’s appeal under s. 172(3)(a. 1) of the revocation of its registration as a charitable organization, Ryer JA noted that one of the grounds for revocation was that the Appellant had failed to devote all of its resources to charitable activities carried on by it (which were not considered to include amounts paid to disabled fundraisers), stating (at paras. 58, 59 & 61): …[O]nly one percent of the funds raised by the Appellant was deployed towards charitable activities in the period under review. ...

Before noting that this prompt appeal precluded arguments that CRA had not considered the notice of objection with all due dispatch, Ryer JA stated (at para. 28): The phrase “with all due dispatch” in subsection 165(3) has been interpreted to mean within a reasonable period of time (see Hillier v. ...

In confirming the annulment of the Appellant’s registration, Webb JA found that its activities relating to the prevention of poverty were not being carried out for a charitable purpose, noting (at para. 16) that “the Appellant did not refer to any case that have held that the relief of poverty will include the prevention of poverty,” (at para. 17) that “it is clear that the Appellant is assisting many consumers who are employed and who have assets and therefore would not necessarily, as of the time of receiving the assistance, be considered to be in poverty,” and (at para. 18) that “just as in the United Kingdom, it will require an act Parliament to add the prevention of poverty as a charitable purpose.” ...