Search - considered

He argued that the appellant was, by virtue of subsection 56.1(3) of the Act considered to have received the amount allocated to her in respect of 1991 under the agreement and that the amount was deemed to have been received for purposes of paragraph 56(1)(b). ... Subsection 56.1(3), for the pertinent period, read as follows: For the purposes of this section and section 56, where a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or a written agreement made at any time in a taxation year provides that an amount received before that time and in the year or the immediately preceding taxation year is to be considered as having been paid and received pursuant thereto, the following rules apply: (a) the amount shall be deemed to have been received pursuant thereto; and (b) the person who made the payments shall be deemed to have been separated pursuant to a divorce, judicial separation or written separation agreement from his spouse or former spouse at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year. ... Canada, [1993] G.S.T.C. 49 (T.C.C.), considered, under the informal procedure, the penalty provisions of section 280 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. ...

  [24]         All the factors must be considered when assessing the matter ...   [29]         I reviewed the evidence to determine whether part of the work could be considered a current expense ... I also noticed that it includes the purchase of paint, which is typically considered a current expense. ...

The witness from SAP stated that having a secondary school education was not required although she stated that it would be difficult to take the courses without it. [10]     It remains to be considered whether SAP is a college. ... This question turns on whether the activity undertaken by the taxpayer was sufficiently commercial to be considered primarily business and not personal ... Setchell to have entered into business contracts in order to be considered to be carrying on a business. ...

"   [12]          Under subsection 252(1), a person wholly dependent on the taxpayer, and of whom the taxpayer has custody and control, in law or in fact, is considered a child of the taxpayer. By virtue of subsection 252(2) of the Act, that taxpayer is considered the child's parent. ...   [15]          I do not see how a person who already resides with a dependent, has a part-time job and receives social assistance can be considered to have other children (three or four at a time) who are wholly dependent on her. ...

By letter dated September 19, 1989, (Tab 7 of Book of Exhibits), Revenue Canada advised the Appellant that no appeal was available in respect of the nil assessment for the Appellant’s 1985 taxation year and therefore the Notice of Objection in relation to that year could not be considered to be valid. 8. ... Under the circumstances of this case is the Minister prevented from asserting (within the provisions of the second version of subsection 152(4.3)) that this Court’s “redetermination” on December 3, 1992 “can reasonably be considered to relate” to the Appellant’s 1985 “balance” such that the Minister was entitled to reassess 1985? ... Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 1 C.T.C. 2021, 93 D.T.C. 148) is to change the Appellant’s balance for the particular years of 1983 and 1984, and (b) the reassessment of the Appellant’s 1985 taxation year can reasonably be considered to relate to the change in the particular balance of the Appellant’s 1983 and 1984 taxation years. ...

If, as counsel for the respondent states, the appellant was prosecuted under section 238 on the basis of the appellant's own returns, the provincial court never considered the additional amounts assessed on January 24, 1992 which are the only amounts to which the appellant objects. Even if counsel is in error in his statement and the appellant was in fact prosecuted under section 239 on the amounts assessed on January 24, 1992, there is no evidence of this and certainly no evidence of just what facts and issues were considered by the provincial court. Neither the certificate of the conviction nor a copy of the information was filed. [11] On either hypothesis the principle of issue estoppel cannot be considered a factor here. [12] The conviction, whatever it was for, and whatever section it may have been under, must be considered in a different context. ...

She was considered to be on sick leave the other half of the time, for which she was paid benefits directly by The Prudential Insurance Company. ... In making his determination, the respondent Minister of National Revenue (“the Minister”) relied, inter alia, on the following facts: (a) the appellant worked for the City of Montréal; [admitted] (b) she worked under a contract of service; [admitted] (c) during the period at issue, she worked half time and was considered to be on sick leave the other half of the time; [admitted] (d) the shortfall in the appellant’s salary was made up for by benefits paid directly to the appellant by the insurance company; [admitted] (e) benefits are not remuneration or earnings; [denied] (f) those benefits are not part of the appellant’s insurable earnings. ... It gave the following reasons for this finding: In order for income to be considered earnings pursuant to subsection 57(2), it must “arise out of any employment”. ...

Section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act (the " Act ") defines "eligible individual" as follows: " eligible individual "- "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 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 (b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident (within the meaning assigned by the Immigration Act), (ii) is a visitor in Canada or the holder of a permit in Canada (within the meanings assigned by the Immigration Act) who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii) was determined before that time under the Immigration Act, or regulations made under that Act, to be a Convention refugee, 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 (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing. [8]            Section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations (the " Regulations "), which appears in Part LXIII of those Regulations, prescribes the factors to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant. ... 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. [9]            Both children in this case are qualified dependants. ... I have considered the letters from the school principal submitted by the Appellant but fail to see how the principal, who did not testify to substantiate her conclusion, could have determined that the Appellant was the primary caregiver. [12]          I therefore find that the Appellant was not the eligible individual for either qualified dependant in August and December 1998 and in January 1999. ...

By letter dated October 1, 1999 Clarica advises the Appellant that her long-term disability benefits are considered taxable income and that she would receive a tax slip for income tax purposes. 13.      ... However the Appellant submitted a T1 adjustment request with her Notice of Objection on November 1, 2000 requesting that the income she received in 1999 from Clarica, in the amount of $17,748.60, be considered as non-taxable long-term disability payments as she had paid the full premium on the plan. 18.      ... The attempt by the Appellant to try and have the policy considered as an employee pay-all policy, thus producing non-taxable income, was only carried out in February, 2000 when the Appellant sent the cheque for $307.86. ...

[6]      The relevant provision of the Employment Insurance Act reads as follows: 5.(1) Subject to subsection (2), insurable employment is: (a) employment in Canada by one or more employers, under any express or implied contract of service or apprenticeship, written or oral, whether the earnings of the employed person are received from the employer or some other person and whether the earnings are calculated by time or by the piece, or partly by time and partly by the piece, or otherwise;... [7]      The relevant regulatory provisions are as follows: Employment Insurance Regulations 9.1        Where a person's earnings are paid on an hourly basis, the person is considered to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person actually worked and for which the person was remunerated. ... Canada (Minister of National Revenue- M.N.R.), [2004] A.C.I. no 69 (Q.L.), 2004CCI131 at paragraphs 7-13. [11]     I agree with counsel for the Worker the pay given to the Worker cannot be considered a retiring allowance unless the employment relationship was broken. ... In fact, section 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations stipulates that a person paid on an hourly basis is considered to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person actually worked and for which the person was remunerated. ...