Search - considered

(the “Act”) which provides as follows: 20 (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), 18(1)(b) and 18(1)(h), in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from a business or property, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto (…) (e.2) the least of the following amounts in respect of a life insurance policy (other than an annuity contract or LIA policy): (i) the premiums payable by the taxpayer under the policy in respect of the year, if (A) an interest in the policy is assigned to a restricted financial institution in the course of a borrowing from the institution, (B) the interest payable in respect of the borrowing is or would, but for subsections 18(2) and 18(3.1) and sections 21 and 28, be deductible in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year, and (C) the assignment referred to in clause 20(1)(e.2)(i)(A) is required by the institution as collateral for the borrowing (ii) the net cost of pure insurance in respect of the year (other than in respect of a period after 2013 during which the policy is a 10/8 policy), as determined in accordance with the regulations, in respect of the interest in the policy referred to in clause (i)(A), and (iii) the portion, of the lesser of the amounts determined under subparagraphs (i) and (ii) in respect of the policy, that can reasonably be considered to relate to the amount owing from time to time during the year by the taxpayer to the institution under the borrowing; (My Emphasis.) [18]   Accordingly, life insurance premiums may be deducted where (i) an interest in a life insurance policy is assigned to a lending institution in the context of a borrowing transaction; (ii) interest on the loan is otherwise deductible to the borrower and finally; (iii) the assignment is required by the lending institution as collateral for the borrowing. [19]   The amount that may be deducted is the lesser of the premiums actually paid and the “net cost of pure insurance” (as set out in subparagraph 20(1)(e.2)(ii)) to distinguish between universal or whole life insurance policies that would typically include a savings component. [20]   The other proviso is that the amount of the premium that can be deducted must “reasonably be considered to relate to the amount owing from time to time” during the year by the taxpayer “to the lending institution”. ... The Queen, [2003] 1 C.T.C. 2714, the Court considered two letters tendered as evidence of the assignment. ... In other words, with regards to the second loan transaction, it is not possible for the Court to correlate the life insurance premiums paid with the balance due on a loan for the taxation years in question. [33]   The Appellant’s agent argued in closing that the proceeding was governed by the informal procedure and that, all things considered, sufficient evidence had been adduced to support the expenses being claimed. [34]   In essence, the Appellant is arguing that the Court should consider the evidence on a less onerous and technical standard in accordance with the objective of the informal procedure: subsection 18.15(3) of the Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.  ...

May reasonably be considered [18]   Although no decisions in regards to subsection 256(2.1) of the Act have defined the terms “ may reasonably be considered ”, the term is used in other sections and was defined by the Federal Court of Appeal (the “ FCA ”) in Wu v.  ... R. [4]   which found that: 46 The words “may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged” in subsection 245(3) indicate that the primary purpose test is an objective one. ... Ct.), at 5345. [22]   While not determinative, an important question to answer in attempting to conclude whether a reason is considered a main reason is “ If there had been no tax advantage, would the plan have been adopted in any event? ...

Cassell would reasonably be considered to be an employee of WPNL. … 46   In light of all of these considerations, I have concluded that Mr. ... Cassell would reasonably be considered to be carrying on a services business on his own account if ICL did not exist. ... I also note that the Minister did not plead that Arora was not carrying on any business in 2009, and I have therefore not considered that issue. ...

Cases considered: Ross v. Canada, [1993] T.C.J. No. 237 Zinn v. Canada, [1999] T.C.J. ...

All of those people were considered to be freelances.   [30]          He acknowledged that some technicians were considered to be employees if they requested it and the budget allowed, and that the duties the technicians might perform did not change ... I considered myself to be an employee and not a subcontractor. I had no expenses. ... To the extent that the direct evidence of the facts is not considered sufficiently probative (e.g., because of the limited number of instructions), these facts might be treated as indicia to be considered with the other indicia described below. ...

As for the other example, I have considered that there was no debt on the automobile, thus showing a change there as well, and that the increase in net worth for 1992 is $26,299 instead of $29,120 (DI- 8a), so that the taxpayer is taxed on $2,821 as a result of the principal repayments. ... At that time, it was agreed that written submissions would be sent on the question as to whether the depreciation of an asset was to be considered in the calculation under the net worth method. ... Canada (1993) CTC 2281, in which it was held that the appellant must be considered responsible for his own misfortune if he is unable to discharge his burden of proof as a result of his failure to keep reasonably complete records. ...

Canada (Attorney General), 2001 CarswellNat 1262, where Sexton J.A. considered subsection 165(3) of the Income Tax Act that requires the Minister to act “with all due dispatch” upon receipt of a notice of objection: [13] The meaning of the phrase "with all due dispatch" has been considered by both the Tax Court of Canada and this Court. ... In any event, the UPS decision was later considered and distinguished by this Court in A OK Payday Loans Inc. v. ... Certainly the Minister had encouraged the Appellant in February 2014 when the NPR application was denied to submit a NRRPR application; signalling (sic) that the Minister considered that the Appellant might well qualify for that rebate. ...

Caponi's testimony similar to the testimony considered by the late Chief Judge Garon in McKeown. ... Once again, I adopt the same analysis that Chief Judge Garon adopted in McKeown:   [403]  Based on the parties' arguments and the evidence, the appellant cannot be considered to have been a limited partner in the two partnerships in question under the Income Tax Act unless subsection 96(2.4) of the Act is applicable to him. ... In order not to be considered a passive specified member, [41] Mr. Rouleau would have had to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he was engaged in Cablotel's activities on a regular, continuous and substantial basis ...

Iaconetti's testimony cannot be considered reliable since he was rather vague and inaccurate. ... In my opinion, the evidence submitted by the appellant on this subject did not create a sufficient degree of probability to be considered a prima facie case. ... Iaconetti's testimony cannot be considered reliable because he was deliberately vague and unclear. ...

Although the worker's name appears on the corporation's certificate, the appellant considered him an employee ... A contract of employment is a contract by which a person, the employee, undertakes for a limited period to do work for remuneration, according to the instructions and under the direction or control of another person, the employer.  ...In my view, the $500 he received was a non‑recoverable advance on the profits that the DN partnership might make.  ...Unlike a joint-stock company, a partnership is not considered to be a person separate from its partners. ... Somers" Deputy Judge Somers   CASES CONSIDERED   L'Espérance (c.o.b. ...