Search - considered

I find that this trip is more akin to a personal leisure activity and is too remote from the appellant's business to be considered a business expense. ...

In the taxation years 2000 and 2001, (the only years where there could have been an appeal based upon documentation filed that could have been considered to be a notice of objection) the Appellant did not follow the proper procedure. ...

Counsel for the Respondent has, by the written submissions dated October 7, 2004, agreed with the consent of the Appellant and his wife, that although the Appellant, Yash Marwaha was living in the same residence with his wife, Sushma Marwaha, they were nevertheless to be considered as living separate and apart and pursuant to a written agreement, with the result that the said amount of $8,400.00 in each of said three years is to be included in the income of Yash Marwaha and deducted from the income of Sushma Marwaha as contemplated in Sections 56 and 60 of the Income Tax Act. 3.        ...

Lester, in a letter dated January 24, 2003, that he had been allowed a $3,655 deduction for support payments but that he was denied the additional deduction of $14,000 on the ground that a lump sum payment is not considered a support payment under the Act. [5]      On January 31, 2003, the Minister issued a reassessment with regard to Mr. ...

The Minister takes the position that he was separated and in so doing, it reduces the credit for GST and heating expense relief for the Appellant by $279. [5]      The question before me for the taxation years 1999 and 2000 is should the Appellant to be considered separated or did he have a cohabiting spouse? ...

A copy of that agreement was provided to the Court and marked as Exhibit A-3. [5]      In order for the payments made by the Appellant to be deductible under paragraph 60(b) of the Act, they would have to comply with subsection 60.1(3) of the Act. [6]      That provision requires an explicit recognition that the parties to the agreement intended it to apply to prior payments, and must refer to the past payments as having been paid and received under the written agreement. [7]      In this case, the agreement states that the Appellant shall continue to make support payments and that the effective date of the agreement was March 16, 1996. [8]      However, there is no explicit reference to prior payments, to the tax treatments of those payments or that the payments be considered to have been paid and received under the written agreement. [9]      Subsection 60.1(3) is explicit with respect to these requirements. ...

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Lamarre, J. [1]      Whereas the appellant claimed a business loss of $13,468 in her 1991 income tax return and such loss was allowed on initial assessment dated August 21, 1992. [2]      Whereas by reassessment dated August 16, 1995, the business loss initially allowed was subsequently disallowed. [3]      Whereas on July 12, 1996, the appellant filed an application for extension of time to file an objection, which application was granted and the objection was considered filed on that date. [4]      Whereas the Minister of National Revenue ("Minister") confirmed the reassessment by Notice of Confirmation on May 2, 2002, that is, almost six years after the Notice of Objection was filed. [5]      Whereas the interest on the amount reassessed was increasing throughout that period. [6]      Whereas the evidence showed that the appellant had invested in a tax shelter but had not filed with the Minister a prescribed form containing prescribed information, including the identification number for the tax shelter, as required by subsections 237.1(1) and 237.1(6) of the Income Tax Act (" Act "). [7]      Whereas the appellant is therefore foreclosed to claim a loss in relation to the investment in a tax shelter pursuant to subsection 237.1(6) of the Act. [8]      Whereas it is admitted by the respondent that the Minister took six years to confirm the reassessment because he was waiting for the decision to be given in McKeown v. ...

Each case stands on its own merits. [5] In arriving at his decision the Minister relied on the following allegations of facts: "(a) the Appellant worked as a superintendent for the Payor; (admitted) (b) the Payor did not pay the Appellant on an hourly basis; (admitted) (c) the Payor did not record the hours worked by the Appellant; (admitted) (d) the Appellant was paid a monthly salary of $787.50 for the month of January, 1997; (ignored) (e) the minimum wage in Ontario during the period under review was $6.85 per hour; (ignored) (f) since the Appellant was not paid on an hourly basis and the Payor did not record the hours worked by the Appellant, the insurable hours worked by the Appellant for the period under review, were determined by dividing the total monthly earnings of $787.50 by the minimum wage of $6.86 per hour and were determined to be 115 hours;" (denied) [6] The Appellant was considered employed in insurable employment for the Payor within the meaning of the Act from September 1, 1996 to January 31, 1997. ...

Reasons for order Tardif, J.T.C.C. [1] Whereas a notice of motion to dismiss the appeal was served on January 12, 1999, at Québec; [2] Whereas counsel for the appellant failed to appear when the motion to dismiss was heard; [3] Whereas the Honourable Judge Dussault granted the motion and accordingly dismissed the appeal from the assessments issued under the Income Tax Act for the 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxation years; [4] Whereas costs of $400 were awarded to the respondent; [5] Whereas a motion in revocation of judgment was filed in response to that judgment on February 9, 1999; [6] Whereas counsel for the appellant submitted that the case had been discussed with counsel for the respondent in the days prior to the hearing of the motion to dismiss; [7] Whereas counsel had agreed that the motion would be made only for the payment of costs if the appellant paid $4,000 as ordered by the Tax Court of Canada on October 2, 1998, and filed a list of documents prior to the hearing date; [8] Whereas the costs were in fact paid before the hearing; [9] Whereas the list of documents was also considered to have been filed before the motion was made, on February 1, 1999, through the following undertaking: [TRANSLATION] LIST OF DOCUMENTS The documents of which the appellant has knowledge at this time that might be used in evidence have been cited in the list of exhibits filed by the respondent. ...

The doctrine of estoppel cannot be of assistance because as stated by Sarchuk J. in Waldron, "the issue of estoppel has been considered in a number of cases, and the principle which generally can be taken therefrom is that no representation involving an interpretation of the law by a servant or officer of the Crown can bind it". ...