Search - considered

Seeing as an amount of $5,117.71 was considered as being received from the parents (that is, an amount of $6,317.71 considered as being received and not deposited into the bank accounts, decreased by an unreported amount of $1,200 derived from the sale of blueberries), the difference between $8,000 and $5, 117.71, that is, $2,882.29, was considered as an amount received and deposited. ... Seeing as such an amount was not deposited, it was not included in the disbursements and must therefore be considered as having been used to pay personal expenses in cash.   ... (e) loan of $5,500 from Donald Audy to Richard Morisette   The advance to Mr Morisette was considered in the final net worth. ...

  (2)        Where a catch is delivered in Canada to a buyer or to a buyer's agent by a member of the crew that made the catch, the buyer shall be considered to be the employer of all fishers who are members of that crew and who share in the proceeds from the sale of the catch ...   (3)        Where a catch is delivered by a member of the crew that made the catch to a person who is not considered by virtue of subsection (2) to be the employer and the gross returns from the sale of the catch are paid to the head fisher of the crew, or if there is no head fisher, to the agent for selling the catch of the crew,   (a)        in the case of a head fisher, the head fisher shall be considered to be the employer for all the other fishers who are members of the crew; and   (b)        in the case of an agent,   (i)         if the agent is a member of the crew, the agent shall be considered to be the employer of all the other fishers who are members of the crew, and   (ii)        if the agent is not a member of the crew, the agent shall be considered to be the employer of all the fishers who are members of the crew ...   (4) Where there is a common agent acting at the same time for both the crew and a buyer, that agent shall (a) if the agent is a member of the crew, be considered to be the employer of all the other fishers who are members of the crew; and (b) if the agent is not a member of the crew, be considered to be the employer of all the fishers who are members of the crew ...

" is considered to mean that an employer has six or more employees working a full business day (or a full shift) on each working day of the year, subject to normal absences due to illness or vacation. ... In analyzing the problem different approaches might be considered. [18] The first approach is to consider whether the distinction drawn in paragraph 16 of IT-73R5 between a partnership and a joint venture is correct. ... It is inaccurate to say that one-half of the employee is employed by one co-owner or joint venturer and one-half by the other. [19] This analysis would lead to the remarkable conclusion that if we had, say, ten equal joint venturers in a project with six full-time employees, all ten would be considered to employ six full-time employees. [20] A different analysis based upon paragraph 16 of IT-73R5 would result in each joint venturer being considered to have 0.6 full-time employees, but if, instead of being joint venturers they were partners, they would all employ six full-time employees. [21] I find both results somewhat absurd. ...

., born in 2009 (hereafter the children); admitted (b)    the parents do not live together; admitted (c)     in August 2012, the appellant filed an application to receive the CCTB for the period starting on July 1, 2011, alleging that he and the mother had shared custody of the children since this date; admitted (d)    on August 28, 2012, the Minister sent the appellant and the mother a questionnaire to complete and a request for supporting documents to establish entitlement to the CCTB for the period starting in July 2011; admitted (e)     on October 12, 2012, in response to the documents provided by the appellant and the mother, the Minister informed the appellant in writing that he had established that the children were living with him and the mother on a rotating basis and that both were considered to be primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of the children; admitted (f)     on December 11, 2012, the Minister informed the mother in writing that he had established that the children were living with her and the appellant on a rotating basis and that both were considered to be primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of the children; admitted (g)    on or around February 4, 2013, the mother served the Minister with a Notice of Objection against the redetermination established regarding the CCTB for the 2010 base taxation year, alleging that the shared custody did not begin until April 2012; (h)    on July 5, 2013, on the basis of the documents provided by the mother at the objection stage, the Minister determined that she was the only primary caregiver responsible for the care and upbringing of the children from July 2011 to March 2012. [2]              I heard the testimony of the appellant and the mother of his children, Laurie-Ève Bergeron. ... Factors — For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition eligible individual in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a) the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d) the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e) the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f) the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g) the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h) the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. [19]         Subsection 122.62(1) of the ITA sets a time limit for applying to the Minister. 122.62(1) Eligible individuals — For the purposes of this subdivision, a person may be considered to be an eligible individual in respect of a particular qualified dependant at the beginning of a month only if the person has, no later than 11 months after the end of the month, filed with the Minister a notice in prescribed form containing prescribed information. ... The appellant has to establish that he resided with the children on an equal or near equal basis and that, when the children were residing with him, he primarily fulfilled the responsibility for their care and upbringing according to the factors set out in section 6302 of the Regulations, as reproduced above. [21]         Having considered the evidence, and in light of the agreement concluded between the parents on October 30, 2012 (Exhibits A‑1 and A‑2, para. 41), it seems that the parents regularly shared custody of the children on a 43%/57% basis. ...

The principal factor to be considered in achieving this goal was to ensure that each parcel of land was utilized to its highest and best use. ... O’Leary confirmed that no development was being considered in the eastern sector at that time. ... The courts have on a number of occasions considered the use of hindsight for valuation purposes. ...

Rip J. considered the specific question whether the presumption in paragraph (f) of the definition was rebuttable or irrebuttable. ... Both parents must have filed the notice under subsection 122.62(1) or they would not even have been considered for the benefit. ... Section 6302 of the Regulations requires that certain factors be considered. ...

In analyzing the problem different approaches might be considered. The first approach is to consider whether the distinction drawn in paragraph 16 of IT-73R5 between a partnership and a joint venture is correct. ... This analysis would lead to the remarkable conclusion that if we had, say, ten equal joint venturers in a project with six full-time employees, all ten would be considered to employ six full-time employees. ... To allocate fractions of employees (.15 to.67) to a joint venturer or co-owner strikes me as outside the realm of reality and I would be surprised if whoever wrote the bulletin considered the situation with which we are concerned here. ...

There being no joint custody arrangement during this period, the Appellant can only be considered the eligible individual if the children, or any of them, resided with him. ... The Appellant is therefore entitled to be considered the eligible individual in respect of Nicholas for September 1995 and in respect of Sarah for March 1995, as has been conceded by counsel for the Respondent. Otherwise the Minister's determination for this period, as the Appellant was notified of it, is correct. 17 In summary, therefore, the Appellant is entitled to be considered the eligible individual entitled to the CTB in respect of three children for the month of December 1994, in respect of two children rather than one for the month of March 1995, and in respect of two children rather than one for the month of September 1995. ...

It is only under quite exceptional or unusual circumstances that such an operation should be considered as a speculation. I do not believe that the facts in the present case can be considered as anything but exceptional or unusual. ... As to the source of the income being considered to be the property in Arizona, this is rejected because the taxpayer had no direct participation in the project by way of any ownership or shares. ...

Counsel for the Appellant took the position that the amounts at issue in the seven files should be considered cumulatively, and he prepared his Bill of Costs under Class B as a result ...   [7]   Counsel also referred to section 154 of the Rules which sets out the factors to be considered by the Taxing Officer when taxing costs.  ... Rather than being considered test cases, it was his view that since the introduction of the GST this was simply the first time this question had been considered by the Court, and that there was nothing exceptional involved.  ...