Search - considered

I cannot conclude that the plaintiffs ever considered the leasing of the lots to be a permanent conversion from inventory to capital asset. ...

As to the second issue, we think that, once the conclusion had been reached that the taxing officer had been right in adding to the bill of costs an item for photocopying disbursements considered by him as having been essential for the conduct of the action, the learned motions judge had no reason to intervene. ...

Although the Tax Court Judge considered that the applicant was entitled to a start-up period to establish the intended business, he was equally of the view such a period “cannot last forever”. ...

  [43]            The Tax Court Judge further considered the impact of the stop-loss provisions in subparagraph 40(2)(g)(i), subsection 85(4), paragraph 40(2)(e) and subsection 85(5.1) of the Act, and certain amendments thereto. These anti-avoidance rules are part of the legislative context within which subsection 20(16) is to be considered (Reasons, para. 114) ... In addition, the Tax Court Judge considered documentary evidence which showed that at the planning stage, exclusive emphasis was placed on the “significant income tax benefits” which the proposal would produce (Reasons, paras. 85 and 86). ...

The preamble to that statute contains a list of what were then considered by Parliament to be charitable purposes. ... This list is not exhaustive; for many years now courts have considered that purposes within the spirit and intendment of the preamble may be charitable even though they are not specifically listed therein. ... With the passage of time they have been considered so essential to the public welfare that they have been almost entirely taken over by public authorities. ...

The subject property is considered to be of good quality construction and above average in features. ... Accordingly, the Cost Approach analysis is considered particularly relevant to the valuation of the subject property... ... The Queen, 99 DTC 1229), he concluded that entrepreneurial profit must be considered when the cost of construction is being considered, but that issue did not arise in these proceedings. ...

The Court concluded that the payments were a supply because the payment of money is specifically enumerated as a supply of a “financial service”. [33]   The Court then considered whether the supply was a “financial service” and therefore not a taxable supply. ... This issue will be considered afresh as it was not considered by the Tax Court. [73]   The background facts are not in dispute: (a) During the relevant period, the Manager self-assessed tax under section 218 of the Act on behalf of the Funds on the Earned Daily Fees paid by the Funds. ... However, it considered the issue in the context of paragraph 261(2)(c), which essentially denies a rebate if a rebate or refund “is payable” under another provision. ...

In doing so, it considered a variety of mitigating factors, including Ms. ... In the absence of any such explanation, the decision cannot be considered justified, transparent and intelligible. ... The fact remains, however, that the CRA does not appear to have considered any other factors in coming to its decision, including Ms. ...

Where by reason of the provisions of paragraph 1, an individual is a resident of both Contracting States, then his status shall be determined as follows: (a) He shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State in which he has a permanent home available to him; if he has a permanent home available to him in both States or in neither State, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State with which his personal and economic relations are closer (centre of vital interests).... [6]                The Tax Court judge set out the arguments of the parties as to the application and effect of the Convention, as well as the facts which he considered material to its operation. ... Bujnowksi's situation, when it is read in context it is clear that the judge is here stating his conclusions with respect to the various elements he considered in determining to which State the centre of Mr. ...

The essential submission of the Crown was that the $30,000 should not be considered as part of the capital cost because it was not at risk in view of the conditions of the contract providing for an assured return in the form of guaranteed rental and interest on the bonds. ... I turn, then, to the submission that because of the assured rental revenue under the lease, including the interest on the bonds, the $30,000 should be considered not to have been invested in the film because it was not at risk. ...