Search - considered

Méthé depended very much on his understanding of the Information Brochure regarding Rental Revenue provided by the Department of National Revenue, and in particular the following portion thereof: Capital vs current expenses Expenses you incur to restore your property to its original condition are considered “current expenses*'. ... For example, if the roof leaks and you replace it with one which is of better quality and greater durability than the old roof, this is considered a capital expense. ... The Court did not have a basis upon which to determine which specific item (if any) of the disputed expenses, properly could be considered as “current”. ...

After an office warehouse was built on other property in 1981 (infra #6) the appellant considered building a rental warehouse/office on this site but these plans were not pursued. 4. 1981 — A residential dwelling was acquired on 50th Street in Camrose. ... Hansen maintained that resale had never been discussed nor considered as an option at the time of acquisition. ... There is no evidence that price, size, or renovations were considered or discussed. ...

The appeal for farm losses by the company was withdrawn, leaving three main issues to be considered. ... It then must be considered whether or not her assistance in the decision-making process was worth this large amount to the company. ... In Roymac Mobile Homes Limited v MNR, 77 DTC 204 the Board held that salaries of $10,000 paid to the wives of two directors of the corporation were considered just and reasonable in relation to the services performed. ...

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 Court finds that it can be said that there was reasonable expectation of profit in the 1977, 1978 and 1979 taxation years, therefore the appellant must be considered as a gentleman farmer. ... Also only 60 per cent of the mortgage interest paid must be considered as business expenses. 5. ...

The Appellant's Submissions The appellant says that since he was never employed by Crown Cork, the payment received can not be considered to be income in any sense of the word and accordingly the respondent was wrong in including it in his taxable income. ... Notwithstanding that, on the evidence before me I can readily find that the payment to the appellant was not a grant or voluntary payment or a payment in the nature of a windfall such as the payment considered by the court in The Queen v Cranswick, (supra). ... How appellant’s efforts to bring the parties together were considered by Crown Cork and whether they were a factor in their ultimate arrangements with him is not known to the Court. ...

The appellants contend that the asparagus plant is like a tree which each year produces fruit, and therefore must be considered as an integral part of the land and could not be sold separately. The respondent considered the asparagus plant as part of the inventory of the business and the profit arising from the $25,000 must be considered as business income. 2. ...

Issue The appeals involve the issue of whether each appellant’s respective share of profit realized on the 1976 resale of certain parcels of land purchased in the same year is to be considered as a capital gain or as income in the hands of the respective appellants, and further if the 1977 and 1978 resale of certain parcels of land is to be considered as a capital gain or as income in the hands of Kenneth Papley. ... Since the Plaintiff could not be characterized as a trader, it is of course very important to determine whether or not it could be considered as having been engaged in an adventure or concern in the nature of trade... ...

What this really amounted to was the introduction of the opinion of a lay-witness, since in the pure sense, I doubt whether Mr Wiens had the qualifications to be considered an expert. ... In analyzing the comparables, in addition to considering the selling price, Mr Price considered location, zoning, soil type, cultivated acreage, as well as government assessed values, and Manitoba crop insurance ratings. ... A depressed market affects everybody concerned, that is all purchasers and all vendors, and it is within the knowledge of all, and by itself, it cannot be considered as a form of compulsion. ...

He says that the basic fact of the reassessment dated May 17, 1982 was that the nature of the appellant’s farming operation is such that it cannot be considered to be a business because there is no reasonable expectation of profit. 3. ... The respondent’s contention however is that the appellant is part of the third class of farmers and that no loss is deductible, expenses being considered a personal or living expense pursuant to 18(l)(h) and 248 quoted above. ... 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. ...

Indeed, the farm operations were assessed, independently of the appellant’s real estate business and the farm losses considered by the Minister, on the basis of paragraph 12(l)(a) of the Act (now paragraph 18(l)(a)). ... Conclusion: With respect to the first issue, there is no basis on which the appellant’s farm operations can reasonably be considered as forming an integral part of the appellant’s reflexology and health food business. ... Since the appellant’s chief source of income for 1978 and 1979 is definitely not from farming nor a combination of farming and some other source within the meaning of subsection 31(1), the only remaining question is whether the appellant could reasonably expect that his farming operations would or could provide the bulk of his income and whether farming could be considered the centre of the appellant’s work routine. ...