Search - considered

In his view, the difficulties that may arise, years later, in trying to ascertain the true facts and the administrative problems involved are such that when an assessment is based on a specific fact and no appeal is taken to contest it, the whole matter must then be considered closed: the Revenue Department should not be faced with the possibility of a new challenge to the same fact in the taxpayer’s computation of his income for subsequent years. ... But such value, to be considered, must be demonstrable, real, economic value—as was obviously the case in the two decisions cited by counsel for the defendant, MNR v Malloney’s Studio Limited, [1975] CTC 542: 75 DTC 5377 and The Queen v William Baziuk, [1976] CTC 787; 77 DTC 5001. ...

The defendant’s principal submission was that because The Royal Bank and Trust Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Royal Bank and, as a direction by it to the company would probably be respected, documents in the possession of the company should be considered to be in the possession of the Royal Bank within the mean- ing of the rule and, accordingly, the Royal Bank should be ordered to produce them. ... I do not think, therefore, that they can be considered to be in the possession of the Royal Bank within the meaning of the rule. ...

It becomes obvious therefore that the previous examination and analysis of the geological data done by the witness Rosenblat cannot be considered in the present case but only the actions of the witness subsequent to April 8, 1966. ... Th amount of $19,467.82 less the expenses incurred in earning that income will be therefore considered as taxable. income for the taxation year 1966. ...

Patterson’s evidence is corroborated by Davie, his solicitor at the time, that he (Davie) considered formation of a company as a means of Hayes getting out of the partnership. ... Patterson considered that with Cowichan Finance Ltd on the covenants as interested in Parkview Manor Ltd there would be no difficulty in borrowing on a second mortgage to replace the existing second mortgage. ...

With that objective in mind Mr Rokosh had looked at several properties over a space of time but never seriously considered purchasing any of those properties. ... Statements now as to the intention at the time of acquisition must be considered along with the objective facts. ...

The area is now called Kirkcaldy Heights and in a brochure prepared by the Municipal Planning Branch of the Manitoba Government in 1969 it is indicated that the corner of subject property where Francis wished to construct his restaurant is still considered suitable for such a use. ... The learned Chief Justice said in that case: Where the relevant facts as at the time of purchase are considered together with the subsequent events and the affirmations of the appellant’s shareholders, it is not realistic to conclude that the only possibility that motivated the acquisition was the ultimate creation and retention of a very Substantial housing development. ...

Subsection 56(2) was carefully considered by my brother Cattanach, J in the case of Udell v MNR, [1969] CTC 704. ... There is some irony in this situation where a taxpayer faces a penalty under subsection 56(2) through the alleged gross negligence of his agent, an agent considered by the taxpayer to be expert in this field. ...

Even if the Appellant could be considered as having purchased the lands with the expectation of reselling them at a profit (which is actually contrary to the evidence), this intention would not, of itself, be sufficient to stamp an isolated transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade. ... But on these facts also, when considered in relation to such authorities cited above as Cosmos Inc v MNR (supra), Valclair Investment Co Ltd v MNR (supra); and MNR v Lawee (supra), it is with some hesitation that I find that such property was inventory of an adventure in the nature of trade, and that the facts are sufficient “to stamp [this] isolated transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade”. ...

We have completed your request and have carefully considered all the information to support your CRB eligibility. ... He submitted that (1) the Respondent failed to communicate that the $5,000 income threshold was “net” self-employment income, or income earned after expenses; (2) that even after having received his application and request for a second review, the Respondent did not clearly communicate the requirements; and (3) contrary to notepad entries, the Respondent did not attempt to contact him for additional information after January 12, 2022 prior to rendering the second review decision, nor was his call to the Respondent returned. [18] While the reasons given to support the non-eligibility decision contained in the Officer’s notes and the decision letter are not helpful in understanding how the Officer arrived at the conclusion that the Applicant failed to satisfy the net income threshold, they must be considered within the context of the full record. ...

For example in a land reclamation project the appellant considered it advantageous to be knowledgeable about the agricultural use to which the reclaimed land could be ultimately put. ... This led to the appellant being selected for several minor works and, as the president of the appellant testified, also resulted in the appellant being ‘‘short listed” among the applicants for work so that it became one of a dozen of the applicants being considered rather than one in a thousand, so that the chance of the appellant being selected for work was enhanced manifold. ...