Search - considered

He was asked specifically whether the plaintiff would have considered the various contracts to be completed prior to such approval being given, and he repeatedly answered in the negative. ... And would Wil Mechanical have considered this work completed prior to the engineer's approval? ...

Counsel also stressed the point that during most of the time the Cameron Farm was actually used as an investment for the purpose of yielding rental income to the partnership from the pasture and the farmhouse, which was another relevant factor to be considered according to the authority of M.N.R. v. ... Justice Urie had to determine whether a change of intention on the part of the most active member of a consortium could be considered in the determination of the taxability of his profits from the sale of a residential and commercial property, or whether it was the intention of the consortium as a whole which prevailed. ...

LJP relies upon the provisions of subsection 152(4.3) of the Income Tax Act in support of its application. [12]            Subsection 152(4.3) provides that: 152 (4.3) Notwithstanding subsections 152(4), 152(4.1) and 152(5), where the result of an assessment or a decision on an appeal is to change a particular balance of a taxpayer for a particular taxation year, the Minister may, or where the taxpayer so requests in writing, shall, before the later of the expiration of the normal reassessment period in respect of a subsequent taxation year and the end of the day that is one year after the day on which all rights of objection and appeal expire or are determined in respect of the particular year, reassess the tax, interest or penalties payable, or redetermine an amount deemed to have been paid or to have been an overpayment, under this Part by the taxpayer in respect of the subsequent taxation year, but only to the extent that the reassessment or redetermination can reasonably be considered to relate to the change in the particular balance of the taxpayer for the particular year. 152 (4.3) Malgré les paragraphes (4), (4.1) et (5), lorsqu'une cotisation ou une décision d'appel a pour effet de modifier un solde donné applicable B un contribuable pour une année d'imposition donnée, le ministre peut ou, si le contribuable en fait la demande par écrit, doit, avant le dernier en date du jour d'expiration de la période normale de nouvelle cotisation pour une année d'imposition subséquente et de la fin du jour qui tombe un an apr P s l'extinction ou la détermination de tous les droits d'opposition ou d'appel relatifs B l'année donnée, établir une nouvelle cotisation B l'égard de l'impôt, des intér L ts ou des pénalités payables, ou déterminer de nouveau un montant réputé avoir été payé, ou payé en trop, en vertu de la présente partie par le contribuable pour l'année subséquente, mais seulement dans la mesure o j il est raisonnable de considérer que la nouvelle cotisation ou la détermination se rapporte B la modification du solde donné applicable au contribuable pour l'année donnée. [13]            Also relevant to LJP's application is subsection 152(4.4) of the Income Tax Act, which defines what is meant by the term "balance" as it is used in subsection 152(4.3): (4.4) For the purpose of subsection 152(4.3), a "balance" of a taxpayer for a taxation year is the income, taxable income, taxable income earned in Canada or any loss of the taxpayer for the year, or the tax or other amount payable by, any amount refundable to, or any amount deemed to have been paid or to have been an overpayment by, the taxpayer for the year. (4.4) Pour l'application du paragraphe (4.3), le solde applicable B un contribuable pour une année d'imposition correspond au revenu, au revenu imposable, au revenu imposable gagné au Canada ou B une perte du contribuable pour l'année, B l'impôt ou autre montant payable par lui pour l'année, B un montant qui lui est remboursable pour l'année ou B un montant réputé avoir été payé, ou payé en trop, par lui pour l'année. [14]            LJP relies upon its success in the Tax Court of Canada with respect to the non-association findings for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years, submitting that its 1998 and 1999 tax years should have been reassessed on the same basis. [15]            In its Notice of Application, LJP asserted that the Minister incorrectly refused to exercise his jurisdiction, erred in law and otherwise acted in a manner contrary to law by refusing to conduct a reassessment in accordance with LJP's written request. [16]            The Minister then brought a motion pursuant to Rule 221 of the Federal Courts Rules seeking an order striking out LJP's Notice of Application. ... While the provision does state that the Minister shall reassess, upon receipt of a written request from a taxpayer, it is clear that the duty to reassess is only engaged when the result of a decision on an appeal is to change a "particular balance" of a taxpayer for a previous year, and then only to the extent that the reassessment can reasonably be considered to relate to the change in the particular balance for the succeeding year or years. ...

This garage was considered to be sufficient for the purposes of the main building and the future addition. ... Since this is a capital expenditure made to produce income, the question that remains is whether it should be considered an eligible capital expenditure under paragraph 14(5)(b) or a part of the capital cost of the building addition under paragraph 20(1)(a). ...

This question was considered by the trial judge as the second issue in the case. ... The trial judge then considered the proper interpretation of the term “acquired” and concluded that original rights could become timber resource properties if, after May 6, 1974, they were acquired in the form of the renewal, extension, or substitution of or for earlier rights. ...

Calculation of income tax payable has notoriously been considered as a sharing of the profits, but the method of calculation of the tax has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it is an expense payable by the Company, in order to do business in Canada. ... I have considered a number of cases where the Court has held that a main reason for separate existence has not been to reduce the amount of taxes that would otherwise be payable as well as a number where a contrary conclusion has been reached.} [5] What emerges from all of them is that the question of fact to be determined is not whether the tax advantage is the main reason but rather whether it is a main reason for the separate existence of the corporations during the particular period in question. ...

I simply cannot accept the argument of counsel for the plaintiff that, because the constitution is to be considered as a living, breathing instrument subject to variations in interpretation as the nation progresses and attitudes change, Head 7 of the Constitution Act, 1867 above cited should now be interpreted somehow to mean defence by strictly non-violent means. ... The only section which can in any way be considered relevant to the issue is subsection 2(a). ...

It was not a gratuity nor could it be considered as coming within the description of “other benefits of any kind whatever... received... in the course of his employment as used in what is now subsection 6(1) (supra), as these words have to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding words and form part of the phrase “the value of board, lodging and other benefits of any kind whatever” and merely indicate the receipt of some benefit in a form other than cash. ... Grant, DJ for example, in Her Majesty The Queen v Elizabeth Joan Savage, [1980] CTC 103; 80 DTC 6066, decided that an amount of $300 awarded to a defendant by her employer in recognition of her success in a Life Office Management Association ex- amination was an award by the employer because she had improved her knowledge and efficiency in her field of employment and that is must be considered as having been received “in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of, her employment”. ...

Each one of these elements considered separately may not be determinant, but the repeated combination of the same factors in four successive transactions cannot but establish a clear secondary intention to resell at a profit. Goetz, T.C.J. stated that if he could ignore the purported reason for the sale, namely the attitude of the sons, he would have considered the sale a capital transaction, but that it was insufficient reason for the sale given the presence of the other viable alternatives. ...

While the plaintiff contends that Granville’s role in the transaction was not explicitly considered by the defendant, the onus is on the plaintiff to establish, in evidence, that the defendant’s assessment is somehow deficient. ... Moreover, even if Granville’s role was not considered in its entirety, as contended by the plaintiff, I am satisfied that the Minister has, nevertheless established the correctness of his assessment on the evidence before the Court. ...