Search - considered

The appellant took issue with the CRA’s interpretation of section 9 of the Children’s Special Allowance Regulations, SOR/93-12 (Regulations), part of which reads as follows: 9 For the purposes of the Act, a child is considered to be maintained by an applicant in a month if: 9 Pour l’application de la Loi, un enfant est considéré comme étant à la charge du demandeur pour un mois donné si: (a) the applicant, at the end of the month, provides for the child’s care, maintenance, education, training and advancement to a greater extent than any other department, agency or institution or any person; or a) soit le demandeur est à la fin de ce mois celui qui assure le soin, la subsistance, l’éducation, la formation et le perfectionnement de l’enfant dans une plus large mesure que tout autre ministère, organisme ou établissement, ou toute personne; … […] [Emphasis added by the appellant.] ... According to the appellant, a child who is the subject of a child protection measure could be considered as being maintained by his or her parents for the purposes of section 9 of the Regulations if he or she is staying with them on a part-time basis. ...

The Tax Court also expressly considered, among other things, the absence of contracts for the management services, the invoices on which the appellants relied, and the evidence of a bookkeeper. Moreover, first instance courts are presumed to have considered and assessed all of the evidence before them: Mahjoub v. ...

Canada, [1993] 2 F.C. 179 (C.A.) at 187, 47 D.T.C. 5116, it would be considered to be carrying on a business of trading in qualified investments. ... Nonetheless, the appellant submits that the phrase “carries on one or more businesses” in subsection 146.2(6) should be read so that a TFSA trust that carries on a business of trading investments under well-established common law principles should not be considered to carry on a business for purposes of subsection 146.2(6) when the business involves only trading in qualified investments. [13] We find that position untenable. ...

Relevant Provisions of the Agreement [8]                The application of subparagraph 6202.1(1)(c)(i) of the ITR to several provisions of the Agreement, which are reproduced below, must be considered: 9.         ...   [11]            In interpreting subparagraph 6202.1(1)(c)(i) of the ITR and considering its potential application to the circumstances under consideration in this appeal, in my view, the phrase “may reasonably be considered to have been given” mandates an objective determination of the proper construction of clause 10 of the Agreement and the reason that the Indemnity was given by Deena to the taxpayer.  ... Conclusion [19]            In my view, it may reasonably be considered that, at the time that the Shares were issued, clause 10 of the Agreement constituted an undertaking or obligation that was given by Deena to the taxpayer to ensure, directly or indirectly, that any loss that the taxpayer may sustain from the holding or ownership of the Shares, to the extent that such a loss was related to the expenditure by Deena of the subscription price of the Shares, was limited. ...

Those allowances are not considered as income pursuant to subparagraph 6(1)(b)(vii.1) of the Act and therefore do not fall under paragraph 3(1)(d) of the Regulation. [7]                 The Tax Court Judge disposed of the case by relying exclusively on subparagraph 6(1)(b)(x). ... At first glance, the amount paid in this case seems excessive. [28]            Moreover, the applicant's policy includes specific features indicating that neither the applicant nor the union considered the requirements under subparagraph 6(1)(b)(vii.1) during their negotiations that lead to the policy's adoption. ... Variations of this kind are found in the first four categories which comprise the majority of the employees. [30]            Those variations highlight the questionable logic behind the applicant's policy when the matter is considered from an income tax point of view. ...

Santos testified that he (and thus TBT) considered all of the drivers to be self-employed. ... The judge considered the two groups separately. I see no error in that approach, and I will do the same.   ...   [31]            From paragraph 49 of the judge’s reasons, it appears that he considered any driver who had signed one of the 43 agreements in the record to be an “incorporated driver”. ...

If the ITC is claimed, it becomes an amount that has been considered in the assessment for the taxation year. ...   [21]     The Respondent’s position amounts to asserting that a taxpayer may have to pay back in a subsequent year an ITC that he or she claimed as a deduction from tax payable for a year and that was considered in the assessment for that year ... These are not elements that were considered in the assessment for a given year ...

  [14]            The Judge then considered the Service Workers’ chance of profit.  ...     [19]            In my analysis, the simplicity of the task can have no bearing on control and should not be considered in determining whether a degree of subordination exists.   ... As the parties considered that they were engaged in an independent contractor relationship and as they acted in a manner that was consistent with this relationship, I do not believe that it was open to the Tax Court Judge to disregard their understanding ...

He does not say whether he declined to deal with it because he considered it unnecessary to do so, or because it had not been raised in the pleadings. [32]            There are circumstances in which a new argument may be raised for the first time in this Court. ... Counsel for the Minister explained at the hearing of this appeal that, to her knowledge, they had not been considered. ... Having reviewed those submissions and having considered the history of these proceedings, I have concluded that the Court should not consider this new issue. ...

In consequence, expenses incurred to maintain or vary that right were deductible. [11]            He noted that while expenses incurred to establish a right or property interest would, under established tax principles, be considered to be on account of capital, they had nevertheless also been considered to be on account of income. ... However, he considered himself bound by Nadeau and confirmed the assessment. [16]            Given the likelihood of an appeal, the judge reviewed the evidence of two expert witnesses called on behalf of the appellant. ... Counsel advised that she personally considered this course of action unwise. ...