Search - considered

Where an extraordinary circumstance beyond the person's control has prevented the person from complying with the Act, the following factors will be considered by the Department to determine whether or not penalties and interest will be cancelled or waived: (a) Does the person have a satisfactory history of voluntary compliance (i.e., have previous GST returns been filed and payments made on time)?                                                 ... The following factors will be considered when determining whether or not the Department will cancel or waive the interest and penalties: (a) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has a history of compliance with tax obligations       (b) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has knowingly allowed a balance to exist upon which arrears interest has accrued;               (c) whether or not the taxpayer has exercised a reasonable amount of care and has not been negligent or careless in conducting their affairs under the self-assessment system;                             (d) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission. 5. ...

Where an extraordinary circumstance beyond the person's control has prevented the person from complying with the Act, the following factors will be considered by the Department to determine whether or not penalties and interest will be cancelled or waived: (a) Does the person have a satisfactory history of voluntary compliance (i.e., have previous GST returns been filed and payments made on time)?                                                 ... The following factors will be considered when determining whether or not the Department will cancel or waive the interest and penalties: (a) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has a history of compliance with tax obligations       (b) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has knowingly allowed a balance to exist upon which arrears interest has accrued;               (c) whether or not the taxpayer has exercised a reasonable amount of care and has not been negligent or careless in conducting their affairs under the self-assessment system;                             (d) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission. 5. ...

Where an extraordinary circumstance beyond the person's control has prevented the person from complying with the Act, the following factors will be considered by the Department to determine whether or not penalties and interest will be cancelled or waived: (a) Does the person have a satisfactory history of voluntary compliance (i.e., have previous GST returns been filed and payments made on time)?                                                 ... The following factors will be considered when determining whether or not the Department will cancel or waive the interest and penalties: (a) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has a history of compliance with tax obligations       (b) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has knowingly allowed a balance to exist upon which arrears interest has accrued;               (c) whether or not the taxpayer has exercised a reasonable amount of care and has not been negligent or careless in conducting their affairs under the self-assessment system;                             (d) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission. 5. ...

      [10] Because the tribunal did not find the applicant credible, and had therefore not discharged the burden of proving that she had grounds to fear persecution if she were to return to Algeria, there was no reason to consider whether there was a threat to her life or a threat of cruel and unusual treatment. [11] Finally, the tribunal denied the applicant’s claim on the grounds that she risked being subjected to torture because, in addition to not believing her story, it considered that it was not the Algerian authorities who were involved in this case, but rather the applicant’s family.The tribunal specified in this regard: “the torture must be inflicted by a state authority or a person who would act on its behalf” (see page 4 of the decision). ... The tribunal also did not find the applicant’s story credible because she was unable to recall the name of the lawyer she had consulted in San Francisco.The applicant argued that these determinations were errors. [14] The applicant maintained that the tribunal had to comment on the applicant’s explanations before dismissing her testimony and that it ignored the documentary evidence that corroborated her allegations and actions.According to the applicant, the decision did not take into account the experience of a woman suffering from battered-woman syndrome.While it is true that the applicant did not consult a physician or file a complaint with the U.S. authorities, the tribunal should have considered the reason for which she did not: including the possibility that she was suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome and that she was ashamed and afraid of being sent back to Algeria by the U.S. authorities because she had no status in the United States. [15] The applicant pointed out that in Khon v. ...

Thompson was by circumstance in the position of acting Assistant Director, Revenue Collections, by the "second level" review, the independence of the review process was not nullified given that the request was considered by two Collections Officers and two other Managers in the course of the ordinary fairness review process. [19]               This argument cannot withstand scrutiny. ... He is to be considered as a self-represented litigant (see Davidson v. ...

Nino Cavalancia Director, Commodity Taxes [5]      On October 31, 1996, after deducting $660,476.41 and $43,746.78, sums that were considered ineligible, the respondent sent Ultramar a cheque in the amount of $720,770 in regard to the claim under the Excise Tax Act for the period from May 31, 1990 to March 30, 1993. ... Ultramar refused to pay anything and told the respondent, in a letter on December 2, 1997, that it considered itself to be the exclusive beneficiary of the refunds and drawbacks made under the Excise Tax Act and that there was no factual or legal evidence of the existence of any contract, oral or written, under which it had become the debtor to Socanav of such refunds and drawbacks. [7]      On April 27, 1998, Ultramar sent Revenue Canada, Customs, Excise and Taxation, a new application for refund of the excise tax, pursuant to section 69 of the Excise Tax Act. ...

This request was considered but declined by way of letter dated August 7, 1997. ... A list of additional factors considered by Mr. Mannion can be found in his affidavit. ...

Canada, 4 Judge Mogan of the Tax Court of Canada considered his colleague"s decision in Robinson 5 and concluded that he would not interpret subsection 15(1) as referring "to some form of action with a strong component of intent". ... It has not been established that the defendant had the knowledge to appreciate the significance of this entry in the statement of the company"s liabilities, even if I assume that he read or ought to have read the financial statements. [10]      I have also considered the plaintiff"s arguments based on calculations to show the material relevance of the amount of $64,022. ...

As you chose not to exercise this option at that time, the attempt to file the capital gains election after the filing deadline is considered to be retroactive tax planning. ... We have considered the other circumstances identified in your letter, however, due to the dates of these events, we have determined that no relevance of these events to the 1997 arrears interest charges has been demonstrated. [13]      In my view, this decision was a reasonable one based on the information submitted to that point by Mr. ...

The refusal letter provided, in part, as follows: We have carefully considered your submission in relation to the applicable legislation. ... The Applicant was entitled to have his case considered on the basis of the record and without consideration of extraneous facts such as those contained in the previous application of a separate person. ...