Search - considered

In the original Moldowan decision, these factors were enumerated as follows: 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 capital cost allowance. ... However, these amounts must be considered in the light that the Appellant did not establish at the outset of the operation of his business that there was a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

The way in which wages are used or disposed of may be relevant or may be a factor in completing evidence, but it is certainly not determinative in itself, since all individuals are perfectly free to dispose of the money they earn through their work. [13] The evidence also showed that this Court has previously considered the appellant’s work in a judgment rendered by the Honourable Deputy Judge Cuddihy on August 23, 1996 (file No. 96-184(UI)). [14] At the time of that judgment, Ludger Després was using the “loose” lobster fishing process, that is, with individual traps. ... The appellant was entitled to have the respondent exercise his discretion neutrally and objectively, confining himself to all the facts in the single period at issue that was concerned in the assessment. [18] The discretion was exercised in a tendentious, biased way, and this Court accordingly claims the right to assess the evidence from the standpoint of a trial de novo. [19] The respondent chose not to call any witnesses, which means that the only material to be considered is the evidence consisting of the testimony of the appellant and her spouse, who, as I said, are entirely credible. ...

Issue [2] The issue is whether the Appellant should be considered as having made any payments on account of its Part I.3 tax liability for its May 31, 1990 and May 31, 1991 taxation years prior to the April 30, 1993 Notice of Assessment of the two returns. ... The 1992 instalment cannot be considered an instalment made for the 1991 Part I.3 liability, which was unknown at that time by the Minister. [20] Liability for instalment payments for the 1991 taxation year is established under paragraph 181.7(1)(a) of the Act. ...

Furthermore, the Appellant's testimony as well as his representations to Revenue Canada at various times, demonstrates that he considered the entire business as a single entity and a single source of income for the purposes of sections 3 and 9 of the Income Tax Act. ... Since it is fairly clear from the evidence that the taxi business was being carried on throughout 1991 by the Company and since there is no other evidence that an allowable business loss actually occurred in the Appellant's 1991 taxation year, he cannot succeed on this issue. [15]     As counsel for the Minister observed, in order to properly make such a claim, it would be necessary for the Appellant to seek to amend the Company's T2 return for the year in which the loss was crystallized before adjustments of any kind might be considered to his personal returns with respect to any ABIL which might have been sustained by the Appellant. ...

The Appellant has agreed to comply with the Minister's reversed opinion after November 6, 1996. [11] To summarize, the named individuals are not to be considered employed in insurable employment in accordance with paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act for 1995 and up to November 6, 1996. They are considered to be employed in insurable employment after November 6, 1996. [12] The appeal is allowed and the assessment is vacated in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment. ...

In making the reassessments dated October 30, 1995, for the 1992 and 1994 taxation years, the Minister considered the following facts, inter alia, to be true: (a) during the taxation years at issue, the appellant and Solange Crevier (hereinafter “the spouse”) were equal co-owners of a property located at 1554 Des Chenaies in the municipality of Boisbriand in the province of Quebec (hereinafter “the property”); (b) the property was acquired in 1988; (c) the property is a single-family home with an apartment in the basement; (d) the property has just one street address, namely the appellant’s address, 1554 Des Chenaies; (e) the following income and expenses were reported in respect of the property for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years (a detailed account is appended hereto): 1992 1993 1994 Gross rental income $4,275 $4,800 $4,920 Rental expenses $19,805 $16,113 $14,578 Net rental loss ($15,530) ($11,313) ($9,658) (f) the appellant estimated that the basement took up one third of the total area of the property and said that the rental expenses he submitted represented one third of all the expenses for the property; (g) the appellant claimed the following proportions of the total net rental losses for the property as his net rental losses: 100 percent for the 1992 taxation year, 0 percent for the 1993 taxation year and 50 percent for the 1994 taxation year; (h) the following net losses have been reported in respect of the property since it was purchased: Year Loss reported 1988 ($7,788) 1989 ($8,480) 1990 ($8,634) 1991 ($24,914) 1992 ($15,530) 1993 ($11,232) 1994 ($9,658) (i) since the mortgage interest, property tax and insurance carrying charges alone totalled $7,536 for the 1992 taxation year, $7,622 for the 1993 taxation year and $7,409 for the 1994 taxation year, they exceeded the gross income by $3,261 in 1992, $2,822 in 1993 and $2,489 in 1994; (j) during our audit, the appellant said that he knew he would not make a profit on this investment and that the only reason he rented his basement was to help pay the mortgage; (k) the appellant filed no vouchers in support of his expense claims for the 1992 taxation year and filed only $3,000 worth of receipts for repairs for the 1994 taxation year, of each amount 50 percent was attributable to him; (l) for the taxation years at issue, the appellant created an increase in his net rental loss by claiming capital cost allowance; (m) the appellant has not shown that the sums of $13,913 for the 1992 taxation year and $4,829 for the 1994 taxation year were spent for the purpose of earning income from a business or property; (n) during the taxation years at issue, the appellant had no reasonable expectation of profit in respect of his property. 9. ... In making the reassessments dated October 30, 1995, for the 1993 and 1994 taxation years, the Minister considered the following facts, inter alia, to be true:... ...

It was on the basis of the advice from their bank manager that the Amatos acquired the Scarborough property. [5] On acquiring the property the appellants incurred additional expenses to make the property more attractive. [6] Unfortunately, from the time they bought the property until 1994 the appellants failed to show a profit from renting the property and claimed the following losses: YEAR TOTAL RENTAL LOSS EACH APPELLANT'S SHARE- 50% 1987 $ 1,478 $ 739 1988 $ 5,378 $2,689 1989 $ 2,934 $1,467 1990 $ 2,382 $1,191 1991 $ 2,196 $1,098 1992 $17,438 $8,719 1993 $18,190 $9,095 1994 $17,848 $8,924 [7] One of the assumptions of fact that the Minister considered when he made the assessments was that the Scarborough property was vacant throughout 1993 and 1994. ... 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. ...

There is nothing on the Court file to show that the question whether "it would be impracticable in the circumstances" or whether "exceptional circumstances" existed was considered. ... 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 sales comparison approach may be used to value improved properties, vacant land, or land being considered as though vacant; it is the most common and preferred method of land valuation when comparable sales data are available. [6]            Mr. ... Under this scenario, the existing improvements would probably be removed and considered to have no value. (3)            To keep the existing dwelling and subdivide the back portion of the site out for urban development. ...

London Life considered it more efficient to negotiate terms under which the landlord would provide funding to enable London Life to make the necessary leasehold improvements, rather than requiring each landlord to make the appropriate improvements. [7] The lease agreements generally provide that: · the tenant improvement allowance is being paid by the landlord as a contribution toward the cost to London Life of the leasehold improvements; · the leasehold improvements become the property of the landlord immediately upon installation; · the tenant is required to improve the leased premises to a standard in keeping with the appearance and character of a first class office building; · the tenant must submit detailed plans for improvements to the landlord for approval; · the tenant must provide evidence of a work schedule for completion of the improvements and provide a statutory declaration that the tenant’s work has been performed in accordance with the plans submitted; and · the tenant may be requested to provide details of costs incurred for completion of the tenant’s work. [8] London Life collected GST on the amount of each tenant improvement allowance paid to it by the landlords. ... The Respondent agrees that under paragraph 141.1(1)(b) supplies of personal property will not be considered to be made in the course of a commercial activity if the property was exclusively for use or consumption in non-commercial activities. ...