Search - considered

DISCUSSION   [17]            Lump sum payments to an employee may be considered as employment income, retirement allowance, or liquidated damages, or indeed a payment may have a dual purpose depending on the circumstances. ...

Issues Are the amounts of $31,395 in respect of 1980, and $142,800 (revised at trial from $154,000) in respect of 1981, representing the difference between the purchase price of 26,164 shares acquired by the plaintiff in 1980, and 56,000 shares acquired by him in 1981, both acquired under the standby arrangement at 25 cents per share, and their market value on the date of purchase, income of the plaintiff because they were received by him (1) in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of his “office or employment", thus bringing them within paragraph 6(l)(a) of the Income Tax Act and excluding them from the protection of subsection 7(5) of the Act so that they would also be considered income Within paragraph 7(1)(a); (2) as a "benefit or advantage... conferred on a shareholder" by the corporation, thus bringing them within paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Act; or (3) as profit from a "business" (within subsection 9(1)) as defined by subsection 248(l) to include “an adventure or concern in the nature of trade”. ...

The disputed fund consisted entirely of moneys payable upon the disposition of the bank’s property and cannot be considered in any sense as being Walden’s property. ...

The situation here is not unlike that considered by Noël, ACJ in Pigott Investments Limited v The Queen, [1973] CTC 693; 73 DTC 5507, where it was held that the amounts expended by the plaintiff were one facet of a commercial transaction the object of which was to earn income from its construction business. ...

One further matter must be considered. At the close of his argument, counsel for the plaintiff asked for triple costs, or alternatively, costs on a solicitor-and- client basis if the plaintiff were successful, because “some consideration should be given to compensate the taxpayer for [bearing the burden of] this test case.” ...

Schwartz' capital could not be considered at risk in 1975 when the first transaction between Jaans and MFL took place. ...

However, it is proper to consider what has been considered to be a structure in connection with other taxing statutes: see Superior Pre-Kast, supra, at 619 (C.T.C. 435). ...

Nonetheless, counsel for the applicant argues that subsection 152(6) requires the Minister to reassess by allowing the deduction claimed by the applicant and then, if the Minister wishes to make a further reassessment, he may do so pursuant to subparagraph 152(4)(b)(i) of the Act which provides: 152(4)...the Minister may at any time assess tax for a taxation year, interest or penalties, if any, payable under this Part by a taxpayer...and may (b) before the day that is 3 years after the expiration of the normal reassessment period for the taxpayer in respect of the year, if (i) an assessment or reassessment of the tax of the taxpayer was required pursuant to subsection (6)... reassess or make additional assessments, or assess tax, interest or penalties under this Part, as the circumstances require, except that a reassessment, an additional assessment or an assessment may be made under paragraph (b) after the normal reassessment period for the taxpayer in respect of the year only to the extent that it may reasonably be regarded as relating to (d) the assessment or reassessment referred to in subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii), [6] Applicant’s counsel did not explain why, if the Minister was entitled to reassess, he was obliged, in the first instance under subsection 152(6), to allow a deduction which he considered inappropriate. ...

They were not considered to have participated in their husbands' development activities, even though their names were on some other parcels of land which had been traded. ...

" It therefore is not really important whether the $15 million is to be considered as taxes or not, although I would find that it was. ...