Search - considered

It provides:   122.62(1) For the purposes of this subdivision, a person may be considered to be an eligible individual in respect of a particular qualified dependant at the beginning of a month only if the person has, no later than 11 months after the end of the month, filed with the Minister a notice in prescribed form containing prescribed information ... In reaching this conclusion, I have taken several factors into consideration:   (a)               The Minister should have considered whether to waive or extend the notice period in s. 122.62(1). ...

The issue became particularly relevant when the appellant was unable to explain what was actually included in the 70,800 square feet referred to as land and how it could be considered as being used for business purposes ... The tax status of each property created under subsection 136(2) would need to be considered separately, the residential part being exempt, such that the appellant can claim the ITC on the garage portion ...

Any dispute that the Appellant has regarding the amount owed to him by PWGSC cannot be reviewed or considered by the Tax Court. ...   [23]     I have carefully considered the various points made by the Appellant on the tax treatment of the lump sum payment and I reject them. ...

.), as amended (the Act) concerning repayment of employment insurance benefits should be considered. ... (ii) compensation received under an employees’ or workers’ compensation law of Canada or a province in respect of an injury, disability or death, except any such compensation received by a person as the employer or former employer of the person in respect of whose injury, disability or death the compensation was paid,   [12]          In accordance with the definition of "non-capital loss" found in subsection 111(8) of the Act, the Minister justly considered the part of the compensation that was not deducted in computing the appellant's income for 2004, namely, $9,192, to be non-capital loss. ...

However, I am persuaded by the submissions of counsel for the Respondent that, even if the Appellant’s percentage of use is correct, the provisions considered above do not permit such an approach. ...   [5] In the legal sense of that term: Brenda stressed in her testimony that she and Robin had fairly paid for what they considered their share ...

"support amount" means an amount payable or receivable as an allowance on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient, children of the recipient or both the recipient and children of the recipient, if the recipient has discretion as to the use of the amount, and   (a)     the recipient is the spouse or common-law partner or former spouse or common-law partner of the payer, the recipient and payer are living separate and apart because of the breakdown of their marriage or common-law partnership and the amount is receivable under an order of a competent tribunal or under a written agreement; or                                                     […]   60.1 (3) Prior payments-- For the purposes of this section and section 60, where a written agreement or order of a competent tribunal made at any time in a taxation year provides that an amount paid before that time and in the year or the preceding taxation year is to be considered to have been paid and received thereunder,   (a) the amount is deemed to have been paid thereunder; and   (b)    the agreement or order is deemed, except for the purpose of this subsection, to have been made on the day on which the first such amount was paid, […]   (4) Definitions-- The definitions in subsection 56.1(4) apply in this section and section 60.                                                                                              ...   [21]     The applicable law in situations such as this is called the doctrine of estoppel and it was considered by Bowman A.C.J. ...

It would be preferable for these to be considered by the judge who will be hearing the appeals on their merits ...   [23]     As for costs in respect of this application, I have considered the parties’ submissions at the hearing, and have concluded that all parties should bear their own costs.              ...

It was considered that the stone wall was largely a personal expense.   [11]     At the hearing, the appellant testified that he was not claiming the full cost of the wall but only eight percent. ... The assessment did not disallow the expense in its entirety but it considered the cost as a capital item. ...

Medynski did not suggest that the expenses were deductible under any other provision of the Act, counsel for the Minister informed the Court that the Canada Revenue Agency had considered whether a deduction might be allowable under other provisions. ...   [31]     I would briefly mention that I considered the potential application of the surrogatum principle. ...

  [12]          Counsel for the Appellant submitted that section 54 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) must be considered. ...   [13]          The general rule is that: “…an amendment should be allowed at any stage of an action for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy, provided that such allowance would not result in an injustice to the other party not capable of being compensated by an award of costs.” [6] The comments of Bowman J. in Continental Bank [7] are of assistance:   It would do no credit to our system of justice in Canada if the courts were restricted in their consideration of the merits of a case by an ill-considered admission that is inconsistent with another position that is being advanced, particularly where it is sought to withdraw such an admission at an early stage in the proceeding. ...