Search - considered

Law   [5]               At the time in question, the definition of "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") read as follows:    “eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse or common-law partner of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year,   (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse or common-law partner is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (ii) is a temporary resident within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii) is a protected person within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,   (iv) was determined before that time to be a member of a class defined in the Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations made under the Immigration Act, and for the purposes of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing ... For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition “eligible individual” in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant:  (a) the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d) the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e) the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f) the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g) the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h) the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides ...

The later years will have to be considered on their own.   [13]     I will now look at his capitalization. ... This does not mean that a business did not exist in subsequent years, and that will have to be considered separately ...

  [13]     As the accounting treatment of the shares was not at issue, the Respondent's position is that the contribution of the expert can therefore not be considered essential as required by the Tariff ...   [14]     Counsel for the Respondent also questioned whether or not the amounts claimed for the services of the expert should be considered reasonable. ...

The later years will have to be considered on their own.   [13]     I will now look at his capitalization. ... This does not mean that a business did not exist in subsequent years, and that will have to be considered separately ...

  [1]      The issue in this case is whether the appeal filed by the Appellant in relation to the assessment of her 2001 taxation year should be quashed on the basis that the claim made by the Appellant for a medical expense tax credit in 2001 was based on an amount that had already been considered by this Court in a decision rendered in 2005 in relation to a claim for a medical expense tax credit claimed by the Appellant in 2000 ... The Appellant cannot treat the amount paid on the first mortgage as a separate amount paid as it is related to the acquisition of the same condominium that was the subject of the earlier proceeding in this Court and this amount was already included in the purchase price of $302,000 that was considered by Justice Paris ...

    [6]      The first question that needs to be considered with respect to this issue is whether the assessment did in fact impose GST on the settlement amount, or a portion of it. ...   [18]     With this assumption being successfully refuted, it remains to be considered what adjustment should be made for GST with respect to non-resident revenues. ...

Therefore the forfeited shares should be considered a business‑related expense and not be included in his net worth. ... The appellant submits that forfeiture, under the provisions of the Criminal Code can be considered as an expense because expenses are incident to carrying on a business and an order of forfeiture is a risk in this particular kind of business. ...

Orsini was rendered after April 1997, hence the commencement day is considered to be November 23, 1998, for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of "commencement day" in subsection 56.1(4) of the Income Tax Act (the " Act "). ... Finally, since under paragraph (b) of this definition the commencement day is the earliest of the days mentioned in subparagraphs (b)(i) to (b)(iv), November 23, 1998, must be considered to be the commencement day. [13]     Therefore, under both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of the definition, the commencement day is November 23, 1998. [14]     Where a child support amount is paid in accordance with an agreement or order having a commencement day after April 1997, the consequences are that the former spouse who is the recipient of the support so paid in the course of a year does not have to include any amount in income under paragraph 56(1)(b) of the Act and the former spouse required to pay child support cannot deduct under paragraph 60(b) of the Act the amount of such support paid during the year. [15]     In view of the above, Ms. ...

It sets out the four tests of control, ownership of tools, chance of profit or risk of loss and integration, to be considered in finding the distinction between employee and independent contractor. ... The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors, which may be of importance, are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk he takes, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task.                                                  ...

("Thiro") required he work at a construction site located in Sarnia, Ontario from September 2001 until April 2002, inclusively; g)          the amount of expenses claimed by the Appellant as stated in paragraph 3 herein were composed of the following:             Expense        2001        2002 Automobile $1,720 $1,100 Food, beverage 1,000    (½) 550    (½) Lodging 3,240 1,840 Total expenses $5,960 $3,490 h)          the Appellant maintained temporary accommodation in Timmins and Sarnia while working for Comstock and Thiro during the time periods referred to in subparagraphs 9(e) and 9(f) herein; i)           the Appellant commuted between the Residence in Sudbury and the temporary accommodation as referred to in subparagraph 9(h) herein, the automobile expenses as claimed by the Appellant and stated in subparagraph 9(g) herein were incurred in regard to travel between said Residence and said temporary accommodations and the Appellant did not travel between construction sites during working hours; j)           the amounts claimed for food, beverages and lodging as stated in subparagraph 9(g) herein were incurred with respect to the cost of accommodation in Sarnia and Timmins and cost of food and beverages consumed during the Appellant's stay at said locations; and k)          the construction sites as referred to hereinbefore are considered to be the 'employer's place of business' during the time periods when the Appellant was working at said sites. [4]      While the Appellant worked at various sites for several employers, only two sites are in question, Thiro in Sarnia, and Comstock in Timmins. ... It is defined in paragraph 32(c) of the Minister's IT-522R as follows: 32(c)     "place of business" generally is considered to have reference to a permanent establishment of the employer such as an office, factory, warehouse, branch or store, or to a field office at a large construction job. [5]      Thiro is a Quebec corporation, permanently established in the Provinceof Quebec. ...