Search - considered

Collicutt to the joint account, that the Appellant did not access the account, and considered herself to be unable to, and that she and Mr. Collicutt both considered the account, including the monthly credits of the benefit, to belong to Mr. ...

It is the nature of the operation that must be considered. Is it an operation in which services can usefully be acquired separately? ... Tips or the number of clients that a business has cannot be considered as a source of profits for a self-employed worker ...

Hough strongly disagreed with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency's (CCRA) ruling that the Intervenor should be considered as an employee during the period in question. [7]      The Intervenor testified that at first it was to be an independent contract basis but that this changed over time although details of how and when it changed were not made clear. ... As the parties considered that they were engaged in an independent contractor relationship and as they acted in a manner consistent with this relationship, it was not open to the Tax Court Judge to disregard their understanding. ...

O'Connor J. of this Court in De Giorgio, considered this question at paragraphs 9 to 12: 9        The amount of $169,500 was taxed as income of some sort.    ... Counsel for the Minister however contends that the $169,500 should be considered as a shareholder benefit or appropriation as opposed to earned income. 10        After some consideration I am satisfied that the $169,500 reported by the Appellant in 1990 as income from R.E.D.G. qualifies as earned income as defined in paragraph 146(1) (c) of the Act. ...

Finally, I was considered a consultant in private practice for the purposes of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec. (11)          I owned all the equipment (computer and other equipment, tools and vehicles) needed to perform my contracts. ... The appellant had been an employee in 1994 and considered himself an employee of the company after 1997 when an employee stock option plan was created. [8]            Applying the tests set out in Wiebe Door, [1986] 3 F.C. 553, I conclude as follows: 1. ...

.; [16]          From reading the above provision, the question to be decided is can a patient, on the recommendation of a dermatologist, that travelling for short periods to a warmer climate to receive direct sunlight, be considered as medical services as used in the above provisions of the Act. [17]          Létourneau, J.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal in Johnston v. ... The question is: Can casual " medical advice " given in a general way to patients and not noted in the patient's records be considered " treatment " or " service " or is this something different? ...

A home office used by a doctor to meet one or two patients a week is an example of a work space which would not be considered used on a regular and continuous basis for meeting patients. ... Unless 1(a) above applies, both requirements in 1(b) above must be met in order to deduct expenses relating to a work space. [13]          It is my view that if the seeing of a patient on an average of once a week at the home office could not suffice to make it a regular and continuous use of the home workspace, the receiving of an average of seven phone calls an evening by patients may be considered such a regular and continuous use of a home workspace. ...

The expressed wishes of the worker and the employer are a factor to be considered, but they are not dispositive of the issue. [2] Other significant factors include the degree of control exercised by the employer over the way in which the work is to be done, the ownership of the necessary tools and equipment, the opportunity for both profit and loss by the worker, the degree to which the work and the worker are integrated into the business of the employer, and whether or not the worker is bound to do the work himself, or if he may hire and pay people to help him with it. ... O'Brien should be considered to be self-employed as a salesperson, because on his T1 General Income Tax Return for 1997 he reported his income on the line designated for self-employment income. [4] I do not consider this any more determinative of the legal relationship between the Appellant and his companies than a contractual provision would have been. ...

This section need not be considered here because the award of costs under that provision, if it applies, can only be made when the appeal is disposed of. [7]            Similarly, whatever broad discretionary powers this court may have to award costs under section 147 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), they need not be considered at this point (see the order of Bowie J. in Wood v. ...

(admitted) (f)             The appellant cannot be considered to have been an "employee" or to have entered into a valid contract of service with the payer during the period at issue. ... The respondent decided that the appellant could not be considered to have been an employee or to have entered into a contract of employment with the payer. ...