Search - considered

As such, this venture was considered viable and had a reasonable expectation of profit. ... For the annual interest expense to be considered “reasonable in the circumstances”, surely it alone should not generally exceed the gross annual income. ... I conclude that, in the present circumstances, interest should not exceed the gross rental income in order to be considered a reasonable expense. ...

Although he had previously claimed charitable donations of $25 to $100, he had also participated in various charitable activities and donated a substantial amount of time and energy or what he referred to as “sweat equity”. [13] He was introduced to the GLGI Program by his insurance agent whom he knew and considered as a friend. ... Analysis [17] Having considered the evidence, the Court finds that the Appellant has not established a prima facie case that the Minister’s assumptions were incorrect. [18] In particular, the Court finds that the Appellant received the informational brochures describing the GLGI Program that he then reviewed with his spouse. ... Canada, 2010 FCA 287 (para. 12), it agreed with the trial judge’s conclusion that if there is just one interconnected transaction, no part of it can be considered a gift. [32] Similarly, in Makou v. ...

The Minister later expanded the Appellant’s eligibility to include the 2005 taxation year onwards. [8] By letter dated November 13, 2018, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) explained that the Appellant would be entitled to claim the DTC “for some of those years” but only requests “for tax years ending in any of the 10 calendar years before the year you make the requests can be considered.” ... On that date, he also filed a separate notice of objection to the Minister’s refusal to accept his T1 Adjustment request. [19] The Minister responded on August 15, 2023, refusing to accept the notice of objection of the assessment on the basis that the Appellant was “objecting to a statue-barred refund” and it could not be accepted “as a valid objection because the issue is not considered part of the assessment of tax, penalties, and interest.” [20] In closing submissions, the Appellant provided a book of authorities and referred to a number of decisions including Canada v. ... The Court would have considered the merits of the application in light of the criteria set out in subsection 166.2(5). ...

That amount should therefore not be considered to modify the net worth calculation done by the Minister. [18] Since I have not accepted the appellant’s testimony on this point, I do not need to consider the respondent’s objection to the evidence. ... If the answer to that question is in the negative, then a sufficient nexus exists between the receipt and the loss of employment for the payment to be considered a retiring allowance. [5] [27] I find that in this case, it is obvious that there is a connection between the money the appellant received from his union and the loss of his employment. ... The request contained all the facts considered by the Minister in the calculation of the taxpayer’s income using the net worth method. ...

Both were fined and sentenced to periods of incarceration, after which the present appeals were reactivated and a litigation timetable order issued. [5] Legal framework [9] Subsection 147(3) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) sets out the factors which may be considered by this Court in determining costs. In this instance, no expert witnesses testified so the relevant factors are as follows: a. the result of the proceeding; b. the amounts in issue; c. the importance of the issues; d. any offer of settlement made in writing; e. the volume of work; f. the complexity of the issues; g. the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding; h. the denial or the neglect or refusal of any party to admit anything that should have been admitted; i. whether any stage in the proceedings was (i) improper, vexatious, or unnecessary, or (ii) taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution; and j. any other matter relevant to the question of costs. [10] Some key principles for determining a costs award include the following: a. the Court has broad discretion which must be exercised on a principled basis and not arbitrarily; [6] b. none of the factors in subsection 147(3) are determinative and all relevant factors should be considered; [7] c. costs are intended to be compensatory and contributory rather than punitive or extravagant, with the proper question being what the losing party’s appropriate contribution to the successful party’s costs should be; [8] d. a lump sum may be awarded after considering the amounts at issue, the complexity and importance of those issues, the work generated, and a party’s success; [9] e. there must be egregious circumstances for the court to consider awarding solicitor-client costs, which remain discretionary; [10] f. increased (partial indemnity) costs generally vary between 50 to 75 percent of solicitor-costs [11] but it is not settled law; [12] and g. exceptional circumstances are not needed for a costs award above the tariff. [13] Analysis and discussion (a) The result of the proceeding [11] The respondent was wholly successful with respect to the five appeals dismissed and one quashed. ... Gould did not file returns for any of the five years. [16] The appellants were also liable for unremitted GST in the amount of $67,165. [17] [14] The significance of the amounts in issue must be considered contextually and in relative terms. [18] In this instance, the amounts are significant relative to the appellants’ assertion that they earned no income in those years and in light of the context that the monies were derived from criminally fraudulent activities for which the appellants were found to be culpable. [19] [15] Therefore, this factor favours increased costs. ...

In fact, even in a technical interpretation letter dated November 14, 1985 (Exhibit A-3) the increase of income for tax purposes attributable to the credits does not appear to have been considered. ... Consequently, counsel for the appellant emphasized that the instant case should be considered in light of this statutory objective. ... "Safe income on hand" refers to that portion of the safe income of a share which can reasonably be considered to contribute to the capital gain on that share. ...

Overall, he considered the 2012 budget reasonable. Mr. Michelin also noted that Deloitte considered it reasonable as well. ... Mady considered the figure to be at least within the realm of possibility. Deloitte, in doing the due diligence for DCC, considered the figure reasonable. ...

On the other, some decisions considered that the violation of section 18 of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, which is the equivalent of section 196 of the IRPR, did not automatically affect the general interest. [24] (ii) Line against the appellants’ position [62]   A series of Court decisions considered the interests protected by the IRPA to be of directive public order and that a contract of employment exercised by a foreign national without a valid work permit must be sanctioned by absolute nullity: Isidore v. ... But application of these principles has evolved over the years to meet changing needs and realities… Not all contracts which violate a law or regulation, however indirectly or theoretically, must be considered absolutely null. ... P‑40.1, is considered to be of protective economic public order as a whole in a number of decisions, such as: 9002‑5073 Québec Inc. v. ...

Choulli had developed in the Appellants’ case, and which would be considered by the GAAR Committee. ... The assertion that other analyses were not considered by the Minister’s auditors concerning the Appellants is possible, but not necessarily more likely than not. ... Situated as preamble overtures in the replies, frankly, features rather than diminishes such salvos. [149] The Respondent shall provide a description of the “strategies” and “opportunities” considered and a description by list of those ignored and irrelevant. ...

In addition, she worked full days every other Sunday, more or less, throughout that year. [3]              Her original claim included significantly more amounts as she reduced her claim before coming to Court seeking the tuition tax credit. [4]              In determining whether her attendance should be considered full-time or part-time, she sought to include travel time to her Buffalo days, which I do not think is appropriate to consider as part of attendance, whether full-time or part-time. [5]              She indicated that her best estimate was that she spent two or three hours in total at her courses and course work and studies and readings, five work days a week. ...