Search - considered

  [7]              The Court has previously considered the issue of a common question contained within the case of Skinner Estate v. ... Batalha nor even proposed to him in writing that he should be reassessed or indicated that he was being considered for reassessment. ...   [14]         Therefore, the application is denied by the Court, the question shall not be considered and Docket Number 2011-1994(GST)I, otherwise pending for hearing, should proceed forthwith to a hearing under the Court’s Excise Act, Informal Procedures. ...

Other out of Canada trips were considered to be covered by section 20 of the Act. ... Further, that the distinguishing feature is not whether the expenses are considered to be related to "upline" or "downline" meetings. ... Justice MacKay in Graves, supra, discussed the line of cases in the Tax Court of Canada which considered not only the term convention but facts very similar to the facts in the case at bar. ...

Marconi had sold part of its active business for $18,000,000 and the income therefrom was considered by the Supreme Court to be part of the active business. ... The Court considered that the interest payable on the mortgage was to be considered as part and parcel of the active business of the taxpayer. ...

The Queen, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 209, [1986] 1 C.T.C. 274, 86 D.T.C. 6138, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the application of section 68. ... Justice Heald considered the finding by the trial judge that the agreement in the Golden case was not a sham or subterfuge his decision was based on the specific finding of fact that the amount apportioned by the parties was not an unreasonable amount. ... Doody stated that, in his opinion, the value of $12,375 arrived at by Peat Marwick as the ’’fair market value" was subject to question, and ultimately litigation, because it was based upon unaudited financial statements for the previous years; it was based on the first six months of 1987 and yet was to be effective November 30, 1987; some real property assets of RCPC were not properly valued; and on November 30, 1987 a bonus of $400,000 was paid to the executive officer of RCPC and yet was not considered for the purposes of the Peat Marwick valuation. ...

  [17]         In calculating the penalty under subsection 163(1), the Minister of National Revenue considered that the amount paid directly to Mr. ... The aggregate amount that was considered to be taxable is $180,859.   [18]         As mentioned earlier, the penalty under subsection 163(1) requires repeated failures to report income. ... The tax disclosure provided by the employer indicated that “amounts transferred that are higher than allowed under the Income Tax Act will be considered as income in the year they are transferred.” ...

            (1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a)         an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b)         an individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c)         a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d)         for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational             activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living.... ... Panic disorder is considered to be present when these panic attacks occur repeatedly and lead to a persistent concern over a period of time (at least one month) that they may reoccur. ... The Appellant cannot work due to his impairment but work is not considered a basic activity of daily living pursuant to section 118.4 of the Income Tax Act. [17]     The evidence has shown that the Appellant has a serious prolonged mental and physical impairment but the Court cannot conclude that the Appellant is markedly restricted all or substantially all of the time. [18]     The appeal for the 1994 taxation year is hereby dismissed. ...

For the purposes of this section and section 60, where a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or a written agreement made at any time in a taxation year provides that an amount paid before that time and in the year or the immediately preceding taxation year is to be considered as having been paid and received pursuant thereto, the following rules apply: (a) the amount shall be deemed to have been paid pursuant thereto; and (b) the person who made the payment shall be deemed to have been separated pursuant to a divorce, judicial separation or written separation agreement from his spouse or former spouse at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year. [9] The appellant submitted that he was represented by counsel in the divorce proceedings in the Superior Court of Quebec on February 26, 1997 and that his counsel promised him that the amounts paid previously would be deductible but did not act accordingly. [10] The appellant referred to two judgments of the Quebec Court of Appeal: Langis Bilodeau v. ... L'Heureux-Dubé J.A., as she then was, dissenting because the evidence submitted did not persuade her, nonetheless considered that in the absence of proper records the taxpayer did not lose his right to present a valid defence to the assessment. ... It reads as follows: 336.4 For the purposes of this chapter, where a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or a written agreement made at any time in a taxation year provides that an amount paid before that time and in the year or the preceding taxation year is to be considered as having been paid and received thereunder, (a) the amount is deemed to have been paid thereunder; and (b) the person who made the payment is deemed to have been separated pursuant to a divorce, judicial separation or written separation agreement from his spouse or former spouse to whom he was required to make the payment at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year. [13] In both statutes a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or a written agreement is necessary for support payments to be deducted. [14] Sections 60.1(3) and 336.4 were added by the legislatures so that payments made previously will be deductible, although provided at all times that there is a decree, order, judgment or written agreement to that effect. ...

The section was enacted as a measure designed to thwart the use of offshore investment funds which permitted taxpayers resident in Canada a complete escape from or indefinite deferral of tax on passive income. [1] [3]            Subsection 94.1(1) reads in part: 94.1 (1) Where in a taxation year a taxpayer, other than a non-resident-owned investment corporation, holds or has an interest in property (in this section referred to as an "offshore investment fund property") (a)            that is a share of the capital stock of, an interest in, or a debt of, a non-resident entity (other than a controlled foreign affiliate of the taxpayer or a prescribed non-resident entity) or an interest in or a right or option to acquire such a share, interest or debt, and (b)            that may reasonably be considered to derive its value, directly or indirectly, primarily from portfolio investments of that or any other non-resident entity in                 (i) shares of the capital stock of one or more corporations,                 (ii) indebtedness or annuities,                 (iii) interests in one or more corporations, trusts, partnerships, organizations, funds or entities,                 (iv) commodities,                 (v) real estate,                 (vi) Canadian or foreign resource properties,                 (vii) currency of a country other than Canada,                 (viii) rights or options to acquire or dispose of any of the foregoing, or                 (ix) any combination of the foregoing, and it may reasonably be concluded, having regard to all the circumstances, including (c)            the nature, organization and operation of any non-resident entity and the form of, and the terms and conditions governing, the taxpayer's interest in, or connection with, any non-resident entity, (d)            the extent to which any income, profits and gains that may reasonably be considered to be earned or accrued, whether directly or indirectly, for the benefit of any non-resident entity are subject to an income or profits tax that is significantly less than the income tax that would be applicable to such income, profits and gains if they were earned directly by the taxpayer, and (e)            the extent to which the income, profits and gains of any non-resident entity for any fiscal period are distributed in that or the immediately following fiscal period, that one of the main reasons for the taxpayer acquiring, holding or having the interest in such property was to derive a benefit from portfolio investments in assets described in any of subparagraphs (b)(i) to (ix) in such manner that the taxes, if any, on the income, profits and gains from such assets for any particular year are significantly less than the tax that would have been applicable under this Part if such income, profits and gains had been earned directly by the taxpayer,... [4]            The assessments in issue were based on the holding by the Appellant during the taxation years in question of shares of a corporation resident in Bermuda, Santa Maria Enterprises Limited ("Santa Maria"). ... According to the Appellant other investments were considered. The timing and extent of those investigations were not revealed. ...

Analysis [5] The Respondent's position is that the 4-plex must be considered as a separate residential complex, pursuant to subsection 141(5) and as such, there was a deemed disposition on occupancy pursuant to section 191 and when applying subsection 169(1) concerning input tax credits. ... Thus the 4-plex cannot be considered in isolation as a residential development but must be considered as part and parcel of the commercial development in the 63-unit hotel. [9] Subsection 141(1) of the Act reads: For the purposes of this Part, where substantially all of the consumption or use of property or a service by a person, other than a financial institution, is in the course of the person's commercial activities, all of the consumption or use of the property or service by the person shall be deemed to be in the course of those activities. [10] The 4-plex was an integral part of the Appellant's commercial development, without resort to this provision. ...

It has not been considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. If it is considered by the Supreme Court of Canada the dissenting judgment of Evans J.A. in Royal Winnipeg Ballet will have to be taken into account.   ... (But see Gagnon where intent was not considered at trial but was ascertained by the Federal Court of Appeal by reference to the Wiebe Door tests that were applied by the trial judge. ...