Search - considered

  [9]               Age is at times a ground that is considered differently under the Charter than other enumerated or analogous grounds. ... The Queen, 2002 DTC 1342, this Court again considered the pension income tax credit in the case of a person younger than 65. ... At paragraph 19, Hershfield J. wrote:   With respect to the Charter argument raised by the Appellant I note that this was considered in Kennedy. ...

Its memos and documents indicate that the Appellant considered that the value of the site would increase in any event resulting in limited risk to the Appellant. 9(k) Is correct, according to the Appellant's own inter-office documents. 9(n) Is not correct. ... It refused possible leases to stores it considered to be possible competition to Safeway and it vetoed construction of store sites that it felt intruded on suitable parking space. 9(o) The Appellant was not "involved" in all of this; SPL was, except for the Appellant's listing of its interest for sale. ... The Appellant considered the store site to be ideal and necessary to buy for its own store and to prevent a competitor from building on or near that site. ...

Accordingly, the new shared-custody provisions must be considered for the last month of the Period, namely July 2011.   ... “eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time   (a)  resides with the qualified dependant,   (b)  is a parent of the qualified dependant who   (i) is the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant and who is not a shared‑custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant, or   (ii) is a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant,   […]   and for the purposes of this definition,   (f)  where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent,   (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and   (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing;   [16]         The legislation above is the version currently in force, and it refers to the shared-custody rule. ... 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 ...

  [17]         In addition, NTL stated that it relied on the policy adopted by the CRA with respect to amended returns; namely that under some conditions, amended returns will be considered by the CRA as the facto waivers. ...   [19]         T he Federal Court of Appeal considered the effect of amended returns in Armstrong v The Queen, 2006 DTC 6310. ... In the September letter, the Minister stated that the objections for the Taxation Years had not been filed within 90 days from the issuance of the Notice of Assessment or Reassessment and could not, therefore, be considered.   ...

On the basis of the information submitted, the Department of National Revenue confirmed that he would be considered an emigrant commencing April 1, 1991. ... Notwithstanding subsection 2(2), where an individual was resident in Canada during part of a taxation year, and during some other part of the year was not resident in Canada, was not employed in Canada and was not carrying on business in Canada, for the purpose of this Part, his taxable income for the taxation year is the aggregate of (a) his income for the period or periods in the year throughout which he was resident in Canada, was employed in Canada or was carrying on business in Canada, computed as though such period or periods were the whole taxation year and as though any disposition of property deemed by subsection 48(1) to have been made by reason of the taxpayer having ceased to be resident in Canada were made in such period or periods, and (b) the amount that would be his taxable income earned in Canada for the year if at no time in the year he had been resident in Canada, computed as though the portion of the year that is not in the period or periods referred to in paragraph (a) were the whole taxation year, minus the aggregate of such of the deductions permitted for the purpose of computing taxable income as may reasonably be considered wholly applicable to the period or periods referred to in paragraph (a) and of such part of any other of those deductions as may reasonably be considered applicable to such period or periods. ...

The appellant's alternative arguments are that the amount should be considered as a bad debt pursuant to subsection 215(6) of the Act, and be deductible under paragraph 18(1)(a) or paragraph 20(1)(e) of the Act. ... Paying one’s debt is a good way to maintain a good business relationship, but this payment cannot be considered as a payment made for that purpose. A payment will be considered to have been made for that purpose when there is no legal obligation to make the payment. ...

However, other factors to consider include whether the worker provides his or her own equipment, whether the worker hires his or her own helpers, the degree of financial risk taken by the worker, the degree of responsibility for investment and management held by the worker, and the worker's opportunity for profit in the performance of his or her tasks. [3]   [11]     Accordingly, Major J. considered the central question to be determined is "whether the person who has been engaged to perform the services is performing them as a person in business on his own account or is performing them in the capacity of an employee" ... To formulate a decision then, the overall evidence must be considered taking into account those of the tests which may be applicable and giving to all the evidence the weight which the circumstances may dictate. [4]   Similarly, Major J. stated in Sagaz:   It bears repeating that the above factors constitute a non-exhaustive list, and there is no set formula as to their application. ... However, if he had considered it it is apparent that, from the employees' standpoint, the latter were not in any way integrated into the employer's business ...

A debt is considered bad only when the whole amount is uncollectible or when a portion of it has been settled and the remainder is uncollectible. Otherwise, where a portion of a debt can be considered to be uncollectible, this portion is not considered to be bad. ...

The following is stated, as a general accounting principle, in the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants' Handbook (at subsection 1580.45, last paragraph): Discounting may be considered to be an aid in valuation where an asset would not be realized or an obligation would not be discharged in the current operating cycle. ... I see them simply as additional authority on the subject of what is considered reasonable and prudent in a business context. ... It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that it is the current use, and not the original use of funds which must be considered in determining the deductibility of interest. ...

Analysis:   [7]     It is well established that the cost of travel from a taxpayer’s home to his place of work will be considered personal expenses which will therefore not be deductible. The leading case, which supports the proposition that such travel expenses will not be considered to be incurred in the course of a taxpayer’s work duties, is Ricketts v. ... His home office cannot be considered an extension of the employer’s office and therefore the travel expenses cannot be said to be incurred in travelling from one place of work to another. ...