Search - considered

In assessing the plaintiff, the Minister of National Revenue considered the plaintiff's business during the years in question to be that of investment counsel. ... However, share control (or absence of it) is not necessarily conclusive; it is only a factor to be considered in determining the question of arm's length (Robson Leather Co. v. ... The criteria enunciated in IT-419 have also been the criteria consistently considered by the courts. ...

Unfortunately section 231.6 has not yet been judicially considered and there is no guidance in the case law. The section does set out in subsection 231.6(6) that a requirement may not be considered to be unreasonable on the ground that the information is in the control of a non-resident who is not controlled by the person who has been served with the requirement if the non-resident is related to the person served, i.e., a non-resident parent company of a Canadian subsidiary. The question of relation to a non-resident is considered in section 251 of the Act. ...

Prior to the purchase, Merritt considered three parcels in the Guelph area. ... The third, considered suitable for development, was ultimately bought by College Acres. ... With the benefit of hindsight, the operations actually undertaken or considered, cattle finishing and cash cropping, may clearly appear to have been doomed to failure. ...

The appropriate approach to an appeal of this kind was also considered in M.N.R. v. ... I was also directed to cases which considered the concept of “main” as used in the phrase “main reason” in section 247 of the Act. ... The evidence was clear that tax was not discussed even by Alexander, who, though not an expert tax planner, could have been expected to raise tax issues, had they been considered a main purpose for the incorporations. ...

  [22]            Similar guidelines considered in the respondent’s fairness review process were addressed by the Court in Dorothea Knitting Mills Ltd. v. ... The March 7, 2005 letter demonstrates that the Minister did not close his mind to the arguments put forward by the applicant but considered them fully. ... In these proceedings, the applicant has been unable to identify any significant factor advanced on its behalf that was not considered by the respondent in arriving at his decision ...

This information was considered part of his "second level" fairness request. [15] m)         Mr. ... This information was considered as part of the "second level" fairness request. ... Williams considered the following in respect of Mr. Grundy's request for fairness relief:             i)          the guidelines set out in Information Circular 92-2 (the "Guidelines"); [20]             ii)         the landlord tenant agreement between Mr. ...

Accommodation of needs (2) For any practice mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) to be considered to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement and for any practice mentioned in paragraph (1)(g) to be considered to have a bona fide justification, it must be established that accommodation of the needs of an individual or a class of individuals affected would impose undue hardship on the person who would have to accommodate those needs, considering health, safety and cost. [...] ... The government has chosen to allocate the credit on the basis of the family unit because it considered it to be the most equitable option. ... In Lister, supra, the Court of Appeal considered an analogous argument with respect to differentiation on the basis of age. ...

It also explains how taxpayers or employers can make a request to cancel or waive interest and penalties for years dating back to 1985, and describes the information required for such requests to be considered. [...] ... I agree with the respondent's submission that the standard of review to be applied in this case is patent unreasonableness. [31]            Many cases have considered the standard of review when the Minister's discretionary decision-making is being scrutinized by this Court. In Kaiser, supra, Rouleau J. considered the standard of review of subsection 220(3.1) decisions at and stated at paragraph 9: The jurisprudence has established the standard to be employed by the Courts when called upon to review the exercise of a discretionary power such as the one in question here. ...

Canada (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) (2001), 213 F.T.R. 94, 2001 FCT 1139, the respondent contends that it properly considered the extraordinary circumstances raised by the applicant and simply determined that the applicant's failure to comply with the Act was not attributable to the circumstances cited. [24]            In sum, the respondent submits that its discretion was fairly and properly exercised under subsection 220(3.1) based on relevant considerations and a reasonable decision was made on the basis of the available facts. ... It also explains how taxpayers or employers can make a request to cancel or waive interest and penalties for years dating back to 1985, and describes the information required for such requests to be considered. [...] ... The following factors will be considered when determining whether or not the Department will cancel or waive interest or 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 or employer 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. [...] ...

Apotex also says that there is no evidence before me on these motions that there is, indeed, more than one formulation. [36]            For purposes of these motions, I have considered the various grounds of resistance raised by Apotex. ... That factor would have been considered at the time of the original order. ... I accept that review of the tax liability of the Canadian corporate respondent was not considered at least in the court action at the time the "confidentiality orders" were made and in a sense this is a new circumstance. ...