Search - 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. ... Therefore, for purposes of the ETA she cannot be considered to be in a commercial activity and consequently not entitled to ITC’s. [14]         The Appeal is dismissed. ...

For the purposes of section 125, an “active business” is any business carried on by a corporation other than a “specified investment business” or a personal services business. [8]              A “specified investment business” includes any business with less than six full-time employees throughout the year and has the “principal purpose” of earning income from property or the leasing of property. [9]              The phrase “principal purpose” in the context of a “specified investment business” is not defined in the Act but the phrase was considered by Bowman J. ... Minister of National Revenue, [1989] 1 C.T.C. 2364, 89 D.T.C. 242 at 2366 (D.T.C. 244) [10]         It is the “principal purpose” of the Appellant’s business which must be considered and not the “principal purpose” stated by Mr. ...

The REOP test was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Moldowan v. ... 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. ...

Lubetsky Mouna Aber   Counsel for the Respondent: Louis L'Heureux     ORDER           Whereas an order was issued on November 21, 2014 in this matter allowing the appellant's motion pursuant to Rules 53(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), to strike paragraph 76 of the respondent's reply to the notice of appeal;             And whereas counsel for the appellant requested that costs on a solicitor‑and‑client basis be awarded to the appellant in the matter;             And whereas counsel for the parties have made submissions with respect to the appellant's counsel's request for costs on a solicitor‑and‑client basis;             And having considered the parties' submissions;             It is ordered that the appellant be awarded costs on a solicitor‑and‑client basis for one counsel and party and party costs for any other counsel who would normally be entitled to costs. ... Young [2] that solicitor and client costs: … are generally awarded only where there has been reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct on the part of one of the parties. … [14]         The Court added: … An unsuccessful attempt to prove fraud or dishonesty on a balance of probabilities does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that the unsuccessful party should be held liable for solicitor‑client costs, since not all such attempts will be correctly considered to amount to "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct". ...

“adjusted cost basis” to a policyholder as at a particular time of the policyholder’s interest in a life insurance policy means the amount determined by the formula (A + B + C + D + E + F + G + G.1)- (H + I + J + K + L) where A is the total of all amounts each of which is the cost of an interest in the policy acquired by the policyholder before that time but not including an amount referred to in the description of B or E,... [5] The notice of confirmation by the Minister of National Revenue (“the Minister”) confirms the appellant’s assessment for the following reason: [TRANSLATION] The notice of objection you filed in respect of the income tax assessment made for the 1995 taxation year was carefully considered in accordance with subsection 165(3) of the Income Tax Act. ... The T5 slip was filed at the hearing as Exhibit A-4. [7] In making the assessment, the Minister considered the facts described in paragraph 9 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal to be true. ...

They must be considered in the light of the basic premises that everyone must have a fiscal residence somewhere and that it is quite possible for an individual to be simultaneously resident in more than one place for tax purposes ...   [14]         The Appellant made the comment that it would be unfair to request repayment of these Benefits if they are considered by the Minister to have been paid to her in error. ...

The Queen, 2012 TCC 240 Campbell J. considered that Parliament intended that the words “near equal basis” in the definition of “shared-custody parent” to mean “only a small difference between the amounts of time spent with each parent”. ... The Queen, 2013 TCC 132, Woods J. considered the meaning of the phrase “equal or near equal” in the definition of “shared-custody parent” and stated at paragraph 21: As for the general principles to be applied, in Brady Justice Campbell concluded that the term “near equal” was not restricted to only to a very slight variation from 50/50. ...

., 2003 TCC 885, is instructive as he set out the principles to be considered in decided whether to set aside a default judgment: The principles upon which a court in its discretion will act to set aside a judgment legally entered were set forth by Lamont, J.A. in Klein v. ... The e-mail also suggests hiring new counsel, advice which was not heeded by the Appellant until after the March status hearing. [9]               Having considered all of the foregoing, it is my view that the Appellant has not satisfied the requirements necessary for the Court to exercise their discretion and grant the motion requested, and as a result the motion is dismissed. ...

For using their personal vehicles the brothers were paid what were considered as vehicle allowances that were deductible under the Act. ... Also, the payment should be considered “reasonable” as they knew the specific distance of each snow run, being approximately 92 kilometres, and the total payment was based on an average of the number of snow runs driven. ...

  [7]   The relevant legislation provides as follows by virtue of 56.1(4) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c1 (“Act”): 56.1(4)   […]   support amount   means an amount payable or receivable as an allowance   on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient   and     the recipient is the common-law partner of the payer and the   amount is receivable under an order of a competent tribunal or   under a written agreement;   60.1(3) For the purposes of this section and section 60, where a written agreement or order 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     Definitions (4) The definitions in subsection 56.1(4) apply in this section and section 60 ...     [8]   The authorities have considered this section on many occasions. ...