Search - considered

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.  ...

  [7]      Although the Appellant's ex-wife rendered no services to the corporation controlled by her ex-husband, the corporation paid her the money; at the end of the year, a T4 was prepared for her so that it would be considered employment income ...   [20]     Moreover, amounts paid in excess of what the agreement stipulates are not considered income for the recipient: Marks v. ...   [22]     The amounts in question here cannot and must not be considered deductible support payments. ...

(c) Integral Part or Separate Asset- Another point that may have to be considered is whether the expenditure is to repair a part of a property or whether it is to acquire a property that is itself a separate asset. ... Here the Court considered the assets to be of a capital nature as such were to last for a long time in this rented building, not a residential premise. [10] The case of Minister of National Revenue v. ... The other items mentioned in this paragraph must be considered as capital expense. ...

In the present case the Minister should have considered the price of $0.60 per share in relation to the panic situation on September 16 and 17, 1987. ... The second issue the Court is asked to decide is whether the shares received by the appellant are to be considered as captial or inventory. ... It was further pointed out that while the appellant held the shares he received on September 16, 1987 they should not be considered to be a part of an adventure in the nature of trade. ...

He said that he considered that the company owed him about $65,000 (on the note) and that he had the right to draw that money from the company. ... No netting or offsetting of any accounts "due to" or "due from” the shareholder or employee will be deemed or considered to have taken place in order to eliminate the calculation of a benefit during a particular period. ... There is nothing from which we can infer that one liability was to liquidate the other, or that the balance only was to be considered due". ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer's training, the taxpayer’s intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... The thrust of his message is that the determination must be arrived at objectively after having considered all the facts and relevant circumstances. ... There is no absolute guarantee that his endeavours will be profitable, but all the ingredients for success seem to be in place and when considered together and objectively they support the view that in the years under review it was reasonable to expect that he would realize a profit in the foreseeable future. ...

The property must then be considered as part of the appellant’s inventory, and then the expenses must be considered as part of the cost in the computation of the profit after the sale, but not as current expenses. They were not incurred for the purpose of earning income from the property during the years’ retention of ownership (par. 3.04(a)). 4.03.3 Moreover, even if the expenses were incurred with the intention of earning income (which was not the case), another point to be considered would be whether the property was maintained with a reasonable expectation of profit. In the negative, the expenses must be considered as personal expenses pursuant to the above definition. ...

T.D.), wherein the purpose of the repair was considered and because it represented only part of the value of the asset the Court held the cost of repairs was a current expense. ... Here the Court considered the assets to be of a capital nature as such were to last for a long time in this rented building, not a residential premise. ... The other items mentioned in this paragraph must be considered as capital expense. ...

In making this determination, the Minister considered the facts described in paragraph 4 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal (the “Reply”) which are as follows: [TRANSLATION] (a) the appellant was divorced during the 1994 taxation year; (b) the child for whom the appellant received a child tax benefit for the months of August and September 1995 is named Carlos; (c) the Minister adjusted the child tax benefit to which the appellant was entitled to nil ($0) for the months of August and September 1995; (d) the appellant therefore received an overpayment of $162 for the months of August and September 1995 based on the following calculation: Amount of benefit already $162 granted Revised amount of benefit for months of August and September 0 1995 Overpayment $162 (e) from the Department of Human Resources Development, the Minister obtained the information, which the appellant confirmed by telephone, that her child Carlos had left Canada in July 1995 to return to live in Colombia; (f) consequently, it was established by the Department of Human Resources Development that the appellant no longer met the definition of “eligible individual’’ under section 122.6 for the months of August and September 1995. ... For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition, subsections 252(1) and (2) of the Act provide that a person who has, in fact or in law, complete custody and control of a person who has not yet attained the age of 19 years may also be considered as a parent. ... The expression “resides with” was considered by Judge Rip of this Court in Eliacin c. ...