Search - considered

The other years from 1986 to 1991 inclusive are not eligible to be considered as no notice of objection was filed within the time limit of one year and 90 days from the dates of assessment in each case. ... Such can be found in subsection 118.4(1) of the Act which reads as follows: 118.4(1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or may reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ...

No mention was made that such payments would be considered in whole or in part as capital. ... Such an amendment at a late stage was considered and refused in the case of The Queen v. ...

In addition to the above the provisions of subsection 230(1) of the Act must be considered. 230. ... These items are considered on capital account. See Canada v. Young, [1989] 1 C.T.C. 421, 89 D.T.C. 5234 (F.C.A.). ...

S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act"), and therefore both securities are deemed to be capital property resulting in the gain therefrom should be considered as a capital gain. ... However, nowhere in this decision was subsection 39(4) discussed or considered. ...

Wakeling indicated in testimony that there were, perhaps, other ways in which her expenses could have been paid — or considered, or categorized — thereby avoiding the implications under subsection 8(3), and indeed that may be true. However, according to the facts available to the Court, subsection 81(3) must be considered as having relevance to this particular matter. ...

He submits that he be considered a non-resident with respect to his Canadian Forces Pension income received in 1992 and this income should not be taxable. ... He was not considered by Germany to be a resident of Germany and the Appellant was not taxed by Germany on the pension income in the amount of $22,895.00 in each of 1990 and 1992. ...

As a consequence she was paid a mortgage interest subsidy of the kind considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in Hoefele v. ... I understand the facts of her case to be identical to those considered by the Court of Appeal in Hoefele. ...

Those facts are as follows: (a) Eidi Ghnim is the appellant’s mother; (b) Eidi Ghnim was born in 1917; (c) Eidi Ghnim is considered totally dependent on the appellant by the government pursuant to an immigrant sponsorship contract; (d) Eidi Ghnim has no mental or physical infirmities; (e) for the 1995 taxation year, the appellant is not entitled to the dependant tax credit for his mother, Eidi Ghnim, because she has no mental or physical infirmities. When he testified, the appellant stated that the first part of subparagraph (c) should have been worded as follows: (c) Eidi Ghnim is considered totally dependent.... ...

Chartier appeared on the morning of June 26, 2024, ready to proceed with copies of all relevant documents and so on in hand. [4] No one appeared for the respondent. [5] The Court sent all the parties a copy of a notice stating that the hearing was scheduled for June 26, 2024, in Winnipeg, Manitoba. [6] The respondent did not reply to the notices of appeal, and the deadline to do so has passed. [7] Neither the appellants nor the Court was contacted by counsel for the respondent since the notices of appeal had been filed. [8] We adjourned the hearing for 40 minutes, and when we resumed, there was still no appearance for or update from the respondent. [9] I took into consideration subsections 18.16(1) and (4) of the Tax Court of Canada Act and section 18.21 of that Act, even though that provision concerns only appellants who do not appear. [10] I also considered Rule 140 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), dealing with the respondent’s failure to appear, and Rule 63, dealing with failure to file a reply in general-procedure proceedings. [11] Finally, I also considered and relied on the 2002 decision of former Chief Justice Bowman in Poulton, [1] more specifically, paragraphs 11 to 18 of that decision. [12] I am quite satisfied that, in these particular circumstances, these informal appeals should be allowed and the reassessments vacated. ...

Municipalities providing recycling services are considered to be making a combination of exempt and taxable supplies. ... The respondent adds that no private business would have considered selling compost under such circumstances ... It thus becomes necessary to verify whether the appellant's allocation method may be considered fair and reasonable.      ...