Search - considered

He deducted about 50% of this amount as business expenses, claiming that he had a right to a total deduction of $39,216 from his total income; (g)         the area used for the Appellant's professional practice was about 300 square feet, that is, 13.6% of the area excluding the basement and garage, or 9.4% of the total area, if the basement and garage are included; (h)         the space that the Appellant claimed to be renting to a casual employee was in fact the housekeeper's living quarters with an approximate size of 25 square feet by 30 square feet, for a total of 750 square feet; (i)          the Appellant claimed that he was paid $1,200 in rent in 1995, representing $100/month; (j)          no proof of payment for the rent was provided in the investigation; (k)         given the above information, the Minister considered that all the expenses relating to maintaining and repairing this area for the housekeeper did not constitute expenses incurred for the purpose of earning income; (l)          in addition to the expenses disallowed at paragraph (j) of this document, the Minister disallowed approximately $15,000 in expenses for the landscaping of the residence, given that these expenses were not incurred for the purpose of earning income; (m)        many expenses consisted of fees for the renovation of the kitchen, which the Minister considered to all be personal expenses; (n)         of the $79,452 in related expenses, which were mostly for repairs and maintenance work at the residence, the Minister deducted the amount of $66,253 finding that these expenses were strictly personal and not incurred for the purpose of earning income; (o)         consequently, a balance of $13,199 was considered and the Minister considered that 15% of the expenses were reasonable, given that the area reserved for the Appellant's practice was between 9.4% and 13.6%, depending on whether the basement and garage were taken into account when computing the area of the residence; (p)         the Minister therefore found the amount of $1,980 to be an expense incurred for the purpose of earning income and allowed this amount as a deduction; (q)         because the Appellant declared a total deduction of $39,216 in office expenses, the Minister disallowed $37,236 in expenses. ... He deducted about 50% of this amount as business expenses, claiming that he had a right to a total deduction of $16,663 from his total income; (g)         the area used for the Appellant's professional practice was about 300 square feet, that is, 13.6% of the area excluding the basement and garage, or 9.4% of the total area, if the basement and garage are included; (h)         the space that the Appellant claimed to be renting to a casual employee was in fact the housekeeper's living quarters with an approximate size of 25 square feet by 30 square feet, for a total of 750 square feet; (i)          the Appellant claimed that he was paid $1,020 in rent in 1996, representing $85/month; (j)          no proof of payment for the rent was provided in the investigation; (k)         given the above information, the Minister considered that all the expenses relating to maintaining and repairing this area for the housekeeper did not constitute expenses incurred for the purpose of earning income; (l)          in addition to the expenses disallowed at paragraph (j) of this document, the Minister disallowed approximately $15,000 in expenses for the landscaping of the residence, given that these expenses were not incurred for the purpose of earning income; (m)        many expenses consisted of fees for work done at the residence without being related to the space reserved for the Appellant's practice, which the Minister considered to all be personal expenses; (n)         of the $34,345 in related expenses, which were mostly for repairs and maintenance work at the residence, the Minister deducted the amount of $20,489, finding that these expenses were strictly personal and not incurred for the purpose of earning income; (o)         consequently, a balance of $13,856 was considered and the Minister considered that 15% of the expenses were reasonable, given that the area reserved for the Appellant's practice was between 9.4% and 13.6%, depending on whether the basement and garage were taken into account when computing the area of the residence; p)          the Minister therefore found the amount of $2,078 to be an expense incurred for the purpose of earning income and allowed this amount as a deduction; (q)         because the Appellant declared a total deduction of $16,663 in office expenses, the Minister disallowed $14,585 in expenses. ... It is not a matter of putting files in all of the rooms of the residence so that they will be considered rooms being used for business purposes. [23]     However, the Appellant did convince me that the dinette and kitchen were used for business purposes. ...

rental income for which expenses must be considered and applied in the necessary items; d.   ... McQueen, 2014 ONCA 194, the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion to have a default judgment set aside. ...

There is no indication that any of the requested material was considered by anyone involved in the Appellants’ audit. ... The documents or information you are requesting, if it exits, would not have been prepared in the context of the audit of the appellants and there is nothing to suggest that the auditor considered any document or information such as what is described. ...

The existing use is considered the highest and best use due to the difficulties in redeveloping the neighbourhood. ... Three approaches were considered by Grieco, the direct comparison approach, the cost approach and the income approach. ... Other facts were also considered by him which upon closer examination were shown to have occurred after 1987. ...

Sauro, the respondent's appraiser, first considered 15 comparable sales (9 unsubdivided and 6 subdivided). ... It therefore cannot be considered to be a good comparable, in his view. 3.15.3 Mr. ... It cannot be considered to be a good comparable" [translation]. According to Mr. ...

Osland considered the front of the property to be the extreme easterly portion of the property. ... Osland considered the land in excess of the one acre to contain 30 per cent of site value, i.e., 30 per cent x $214,600, or $64,380. ... I considered Mr. Osland's reply in cross-examination that he could have valued the porches at $18 per square foot and the rest of the house at $48. ...

  [4]      In a reassessment for the 2002 taxation year, the Minister of National Revenue considered that section 84.1 of the Act applied to the disposition. ... Chen are considered to be a group of persons in respect of Sona and Ontario Inc. at the relevant times: s. 84.1(2.2)(b) ... It is necessary to specify which particular group is to be considered for purposes of s. 84.1(2.2)(c) ...

Beecroft considered how much money they would have to earn from the North Shore so as to realize a profit. In other words, they appear not to have considered annual potential costs (for example, mortgage payments, repairs and maintenance, food, taxes, insurance, advertising, cleaning, hydro, heat, etc.) nor gross revenue. ... The fact that the partners considered the property their principal residence creates the personal element as "the dominant, motivating force" in acquisition of the property. ...

Exhibit R-1 is a description made by Counsel for the Respondent showing what are considered to be capital expenses for the Hinton properties. ... The estate is considered the owner of the properties. However, it does not report the rental income. ... It surely cannot be said because a person operates a rental business consisting of several properties that these properties will not be individually considered. ...

  [8]               Section 9.1 of the Regulations states, "…the person is considered to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person actually worked …" [emphasis added ... Under this provision, hours during which a person is available to work in accordance with their employment contract are  considered insurable hours ... The standby hours were therefore considered hours of insurable employment ...