Search - considered

As a result, certain shares of public companies acquired in exchange for private company shares should not have been considered “taxable Canadian property” when the ownership thereof moved from Canada to the United States. ... CES' solicitors but did state in response to questions from the opposition that he accepted the majority report of the standing committee which endorsed the Minister's handling of the Rulings and rejected the Auditor's critique thereof. 8 The facts alleged by the plaintiff are that in 1984, the Minister was asked by a party whose identity is not known to the plaintiff, for a ruling declaring that public company shares held by a trust resident in Canada would be considered “taxable Canadian property” under the Act and that a change in residence of the trust would not cause a deemed realization. ... After the first prayer for relief, the plaintiff inserts in the Statement of Claim a further six paragraphs of facts; and then (f) claims a declaration that in receiving and responding to the 1991 Ruling request, the Minister was acting in a fiduciary capacity, or was acting in a capacity akin to a fiduciary, toward the class of plaintiffs described herein; and (g) a declaration that the Minister breached the said fiduciary duty or fiduciary-like duty in the following respects: (i) by agreeing to issue an Advance Tax Ruling in circumstances where the share exchange had already taken place, and therefore the transaction which was to be the subject of the Ruling was substantially completed, all of which was contrary to established Revenue Canada policy and procedure, which allows for Rulings respecting proposed transactions only; and (ii) by agreeing to issue a Ruling when Revenue Canada believed that the Act did not allow for such a favourable Ruling, or was ambiguous in respect of the proposed transaction; and (iii) by agreeing to issue a Ruling when the applicant therefor was apparently in possession of private information, to wit the 1985 Ruling whereas the only public position ever put out by the Minister was contrary, namely, the 1985 opinion; and (iv) by favouring Protective Trust and Family Trust with a Ruling not equally available to others; (v) by succumbing to pressure by persons outside Revenue Canada and reversing the Department's considered position against a favourable Ruling; (vi) by issuing a Ruling with a private side deal, comprised of the undertaking and waiver thereby allowing a transaction which avoided the intent of the Act; and (vii) by neglecting or refusing to refer the matter to the Anti-Avoidance Committee under the General Anti-Avoidance Rules pursuant to section 245 of the Act, for detailed consideration and analysis in that forum, prior to rendering a decision in response to the Ruling request; and (viii) By processing and approving the Ruling with extraordinary and undue haste, in order to satisfy the schedule of the applicant for the Ruling, and thereby precluding completion of a thorough internal review of all relevant aspects of the matter; and (ix) By issuing an erroneous Ruling in law; and (x) By failing to publish the Ruling forthwith, and by failing to provide all material details of the Ruling when finally publishing same in or about March 1996; and (xi) By failing to take all reasonable steps to protect the tax base and the practical interests of the class of Plaintiffs; and (xii) Such further and other particulars of breach as may become known to the Plaintiff after Discovery. ...

In his reasons, Binnie J. considered other means of collection used by creditors while the section 23 stay was in effect and concluded that the courts have generally held them to be invalid. ... At page 454 of the report, Iacobucci J. considered that the possible existence of an alternative procedure did not disentitle the Minister to the right he had under another Act. [36]      At page 450 of the report Iacobucci J. wrote that the purposes of the Act include a desire to permit an effective and fair distribution of the assets of a bankrupt person and a desire to protect creditors of insolvent persons. ... [Emphasis added.] [42]      Cory J. also considered that such a result did not undermine the integrity of the Act, because the net effect of the compensation order was simply to prove that the victims had a valid claim as unsecured creditors in the bankrupt's estate. ...

He considered Canada as a stable country free of disturbances suitable for a safe long term investment. ... What is the line which separates the two classes of cases may be difficult to define, and each case must be considered according to its facts; the question to be determined being—Is the sum of gain that has been made a mere enhancement of value by realising a security, or is it a gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making? ... While I do not attach too much significance to this judgment decision of the well-known firm of auditors acting for the appellants, these financial statements had of course to be approved by the directors, and the fact that this approval may well have been done by Bermuda directors and not by Mr Hummel for his daughter does not affect in any way the legal responsibility of appellant companies for the contents of these statements which, as respondents contend may provide some further indication that the companies considered the holding of the properties as part of their business operations and not merely as an investment. ...

He argues that some receipts were not considered because they were void of any stamp indicating whether they were accepted or denied and, where receipts filed as proof of expenses were missing, other proof of payment (such as credit card and bank statements) were provided but were not considered. ... We are unable to determine gross or net income based on information provided…   [31]            The record is clear, in my view, that the Minister considered the further information and proof of gross income submitted by the Applicant but that, as suggested by the Respondent, the Minister could not conduct a proper assessment because the Applicant failed to provide proper documentation ...

When the question was considered by the Tax Court, His Honour Judge Taylor answered it in the negative. ... Therefore, one cannot help but wonder how the legislators could have failed to have considered the scenario presently before this Court. ... The background to section 63 in its prior form was considered at length by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Bailey et al. v. ...

Carroll admitted that, other than promoter fees (which are not the subject of the Requirement Order), there is no impact on a taxpayer’s tax liability where the taxpayer merely considered a transaction of the type described in Mr. ... Similarly, there is no impact on a promoter or intended promoter’s tax liability where the promoter or intended promoter merely promoted or considered promoting a Lossco transaction ... A list of corporations, persons or entities known to Cormark who were considered to promote a Transaction as defined above even if the Transaction was not completed.   4.       ...

The subjective statements of intention by the plaintiffs must be considered along with objective facts. ... I fail to follow that a debt forgiven could be considered to be income under normal conditions other than by a deeming section. ... Statements as to intention must be considered along with the objective facts. ...

Mr Lemay already had his library and much of his office equipment when Mr Poulin joined the partnership and while additions and replacements were of course made from year to year and paid for out of the partnership account, Mr Lemay, according to his evidence, apparently considered that these expenditures should not be capitalized in any way but were normal current expenses, especially as many of the books purchased were the current issues of taxation and other services which became obsolete each year when replaced by the following year’s editions. ... When pressed in giving evidence for an indication as to how he reached the figure of $20,000 he was asking for he stated that this represented approximately what it cost him to live for a year according to his usual standards after taking into account the net amounts available to him in previous years after payment of income tax on same and that he wanted sufficient security to give him time to get reestablished in a law practice on his own.* [6] Mr Lemay, for his part, when testifying stated that although he did not wish to introduce any elements of personal animosity into the litigation he had considered at the time that it was worth $20,000 to him to be free of the troubles (which by implication his association with Mr Poulin were causing him). ... In the present case, on the contrary, Brett and Ouellette contend that there never was a general partnership entitling Blauer to share in the fees earned in the Boucherville tunnel and Sherbrooke projects and while they, in their own minds, may have based the amount to be paid to him as a settlement on dissolution of the partnership and for withdrawal of the various proceedings he had laid, on an amount equal to what they considered his share of the profits on these two projects would amount to, it is clear that the settlement was not based on an accounting of the partnership, treating it as a general partnership, up to the date of the dissolution, resulting in a payment to Blauer of his share in the partnership income to this date, for 1 *This figure was 35%. 2 +The agreement of the three partners with Mr Gagnon dated January 5, 1967, states in paragraph 12D (translated): “The price of the partnership shares transferred to the new partner by the partners prorated on the basis of those they hold will be established by taking into account all the assets of the partnership including physical assets; accounts receivable and work in progress.” ...

He conceded that there was no obligation placed upon the recipients of the so- called “allowance" to actually purchase another home in order to qualify, but he had in fact purchased a residence and he maintained that the amount in question could not be considered an allowance as the taxpayer had, as anticipated, increased mortgage costs. ... With these facts in mind, I restate the issue to be resolved: should the sum paid to the taxpayer in the 1976 taxation year be considered other remuneration, or a benefit arising by reason of an office or employment, or, yet, an allowance for unexempted personal or living expenses or for any other purpose and consequently be included in his income for that year? ... The Ransom case, supra, also emphasized a similar connection between the rendering of service and the payment of the amount before the compensation was to be considered income from an office or employment. ...

Is this revenue to be considered income or capital gains. For the purposes of this hearing the witnesses were excluded and so did not have the opportunity to hear the others’ evidence. ... In the present instance an apartment building was erected for the appellant between 1958 and 1960 and wa sold in 1961 for a profit of $78,403 which the Minister sought to tax as arising from an adventure in the nature of trade but which the appellant considered a capital gain resulting from the sale of the property intended as an investment. ... With respect, it is my considered opinion that the pleading is adequate for the purpose intended and gives sufficient information to place the onus on the taxpayer to disprove the factual assumptions upon which the assessment was made. ...