Search - considered

Pyke are qualified real estate valuators whose evidence ought to be considered as expert opinion by the Court in determining the fair market value of the Subject Property on V-day. ... Bower said at page 24: The overall average and median sale price of the 12 sales considered is $60,506/acre and $54,965/acre. The 3 largest site sales considered averaged $46,314/acre. The 3 site sales located in the City of Windsor average $70,520/acre. [26]     Mr. ...

By those reassessments the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) added to the Appellant's income, as previously assessed, certain amounts that he considered were deemed to be income of the Appellant by reason of subsection 74.1(2) of the Income Tax Act (the Act). ... The result is that paragraph 74.5(1)(a) precludes the operation of subsection 74.1(2) in the circumstances of the present case. [8]      That does not end the matter, however, as the Crown sought to advance an alternative position in support of the assessment, based upon subsection 74.4(2), which reads: 74.4(2) Where an individual has transferred or lent property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, to a corporation and one of the main purposes of the transfer or loan may reasonably be considered to be to reduce the income of the individual and to benefit, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, a person who is a designated person in respect of the individual, in computing the income of the individual for any taxation year that includes a period after the loan or transfer throughout which (a)         the person is a designated person in respect of the individual and would have been a specified shareholder of the corporation if the definition "specified shareholder" in subsection 248(1) were read without reference to paragraphs (a) and (d) of that definition and if the reference therein to "any other corporation that is related to the corporation" were read as a reference to "any other corporation (other than a small business corporation) that is related to the corporation", (b)         the individual was resident in Canada, and (c)         the corporation was not a small business corporation, the individual shall be deemed to have received as interest in the year the amount, if any, by which (d)         the amount that would be interest on the outstanding amount of the loan or transfer of the property for such periods in the year if the interest were computed thereon at the prescribed rate of interest for such periods exceeds the total of (e)         any interest received in the year by the individual in respect of the transfer or loan (other than amounts deemed by this subsection to be interest), (f)         5/4 of all taxable dividends received (other than dividends deemed by section 84 to have been received) by the individual in the year on shares that were received from the corporation as consideration for the transfer or as repayment for the loan that were excluded consideration at the time the dividends were received or on shares substituted therefore that were excluded consideration at that time. ... In particular, there is no allegation that one of the main purposes of the transfer of property may reasonably be considered to be to reduce the income of the Appellant and to benefit a designated person. ...

She was considered to have suffered an occupational injury beginning on January 15, 1996, and received CSST benefits until September 22, 1997. ... She maintained, however, that it was not a pension, a salary, or a retiring allowance but rather compensatory damages for the harm suffered as a result of her employment injury, which according to her was not taxable within the meaning of the Act. [13]     Unfortunately for the appellant, whether the amount she received upon the settlement of her grievance is considered as a reimbursement of salary or as compensation for damages sustained, in any event, this income is taxable under the Act, as I shall explain below. [14]     On the one hand, on reading the grievance settlement (Exhibit A-12), it is clear that the employer, Hydro-Québec, agreed to pay the appellant (the grievor) the amount of $35,000, payable in two equal payments, as reimbursement of salary. ...             (1) Subject to this Part, a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from an office or employment is the salary, wages and other remuneration, including gratuities, received by the taxpayer in the year. [15]     Although the amount thus paid by the employer could be considered as compensation for damages, it was also taxable as a retiring allowance within the meaning of subparagraph 56(1)(a)(ii). ...

Moreover, in my opinion, the $25,000 lump sum payment provided for in the Decree Nisi cannot be considered as alimony paid on a periodic basis.   ... The equity transferred by the Appellant cannot be considered for the purpose of paragraphs 60(b) and (c) to be alimony or another allowance payable on a periodic basis. As stated by application of subsection 56(12), it cannot be considered alimony since Nicola had no discretion as to the use of the equity transferred to her ...

Thus that particular search must be considered on the basis of being a warrantless search. ... However, the seriousness of the Charter breach and the effect of exclusion on the repute of the administration of justice will have to be considered." ... However there are a number of aspects to this appeal under the Income Tax Act which must be considered:   1.       ...

Each case stands on its own merits. [5]      In making his decision, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact which were admitted or denied by the Appellant: [translation] (a)         The Payor operated a telecommunications service and installation business; (admitted) (b)         The Payor conducted business under the corporate name of Servitel; (denied) (c)         The Payor's clients were Rogers, AT & T, Cantel, Hydro-Québec; (denied) (d)         The Payor hired between 60 and 80 employees per year; (denied) (e)         The Appellant is an electronics and telecommunications technician; (denied) (f)          The Appellant had been a salaried employee of the Payor since 1994; (admitted) (g)         In August 2000, the Appellant asked the Payor to be considered self-employed; (denied) (h)         The Appellant's duties involved installing or repairing electronic equipment on site and, on occasion, in a workshop; (denied) (i)          During the period at issue, the Appellant was providing services only to the Payor; (denied) (j)          The Appellant did not register his business name; (denied) (k)         The Appellant is not a member of any professional organization; (admitted) (l)          The clients were clients of the Payor; (denied) (m)        The Appellant was contacted by the Payor and the Appellant would make a submission for the work to be done; (denied) (n)         The Appellant carried out the same type of work as the Payor's salaried technicians; (denied) (o)         The Appellant had a work schedule that was the same as the Payor's other technicians; (denied) (p)         The Appellant could not be absent without notifying the Payor; (denied) (q)         The Payor set the Appellant's deadlines; (denied) (r)         The Appellant was required to submit technical reports to the Payor; (denied) (s)         The Appellant's work was verified by the Payor's engineer, by the Payor's test technicians or by the Payor's clients; (denied) (t)          The Appellant could not have his work done by someone else without the Payor's approval; (denied) (u)         If the Appellant needed assistance, the Payor assumed the cost by providing him with his own technical personnel; (denied) (v)         The Appellant billed the Payor at an hourly rate; (denied) (w)        The Appellant used the Payor's vehicles and occasionally his own vehicle for travel; (denied) (x)         The Appellant's travel costs for lodging, meals and mileage were reimbursed by the Payor when the Appellant used his own vehicle; (denied) (y)         The Appellant used his own tool box; (admitted) (z)         All material, wire, connections, components were provided by the Payor; (denied) (aa)       The testing equipment used by the Appellant belonged to the Payor; (denied) (bb)       The Appellant's work was an integral part of the Payor's activities. ... M.N.R., [1986] 3 F.C. 553). [56]     The Appellant worked for the Payor as a salaried employee between 1994 and 1997 and in 1998, the Appellant wanted to established his own business and to be considered self-employed. ... In instances where the driver's means of financial support is [sic] inextricably bound up with the respondent we are of the view that he cannot be considered an independent contractor. ...

The market value of the 11,000 square foot lot would be $499,500 at a unit rate of $45 a square foot. [19]     As to the comparables considered by the respondent's appraiser, Mr. ... A property is considered, the land value appraised, and there is a rate, a building and a residual value of the building. ... Bourassa's view, the value of the land and value of the building should be considered for each of the transactions. [24]     The second witness was the appellant. ...

I have also considered the Appellant's testimony and have taken into account his particular circumstances. ... There is also little useful evidence as to the nature of the work they are alleged to have performed nor is there any evidence as to how or when the payments were made. [5] Wages are generally considered to be payments to a person for services rendered. ... With respect to the gas and parking receipts, the auditor observed that the amount covered by the vouchers was less than the amount claimed on the Appellant's working paper. [8] The Respondent further takes the position that gas purchases in Brampton and North York are to be disallowed on the basis that driving between home and the office are considered personal. ...

Those reassessments are, by the terms of that subsection, limited to that which "can reasonably be considered to relate to the change in the particular balance of the taxpayer for the particular year". [4] That is, it is limited to reflecting a change in the income, taxable income, loss, or the tax payable by the Appellant for 1987 or 1988 arising out of the reassessments of those years to implement Judge Bonner's judgment. [5] As Mr. ... To do what the Appellant now asks would go beyond what could "reasonably be considered to relate to the change in the particular balance", as defined in subsection 152(4.4), for any of the earlier years 1984 to 1988. [18]            The appeals must be dismissed. ... Firm:                  Thorsteinssons For the Respondent:                             Morris Rosenberg                                                                 Deputy Attorney General of Canada                                                                                 Ottawa, Canada APPENDIX "A" 111(1) For the purpose of computing the taxable income of a taxpayer for a taxation year, there may be deducted such portion as the taxpayer may claim of the taxpayer's (a)           non-capital losses for the 7 taxation years immediately preceding and the 3 taxation years immediately following the year;                ... 118(8)      "non-capital loss" of a taxpayer for a taxation year means the amount determined by the formula (A + B)- (C + D + D.1 + D.2) where A              is the amount determined by the formula                E- F where E               is the total of all amounts each of which is the taxpayer's loss for the year from an office, employment, business or property, the taxpayer's allowable business investment loss for the year, an amount deducted under paragraph (1) (b) or section 110.6 in computing the taxpayer's taxable income for the year or an amount that may be deducted under paragraphs 110(1) (d), (d.1), (d.2), (d.3), (f), (j) or (k), section 112 or subsections 113(1) and 138(6) in computing the taxpayer's taxable income for the year, F               is the amount determined under paragraph 3 (c) in respect of the taxpayer for the year, B              is the amount, if any, determined in respect of the taxpayer for the year under section 110.5, C              is any amount specified by the taxpayer in the taxpayer's election for the year under subsection 110.4(2), D              is the amount that would be the taxpayer's farm loss for the year if the amount determined for B in the definition "farm loss" in this subsection were zero, D.1           is the total of all amounts deducted under subsection (10) in respect of the taxpayer for the year, and D.2           is the total of all amounts by which the non-capital loss of the taxpayer for the year is required to be reduced because of section 80;... 152(1)      The Minister shall, with all due dispatch, examine a taxpayer's return of income for a taxation year, assess the tax for the year, the interest and penalties, if any, payable and determine (a)           the amount of refund, if any, to which the taxpayer may be entitled by virtue of section 129, 131, 132 or 133 for the year; or (b)           the amount of tax, if any, deemed by subsection 120(2) or (2.2), 122.5(3), 122.51(2), 125.4(3), 125.5(3), 127.1(1), 127.41(3) or 210.2(3) or (4) to be paid on account of the taxpayer's tax payable under this Part for the year. (1.1)         Where the Minister ascertains the amount of a taxpayer's non-capital loss, net capital loss, restricted farm loss, farm loss or limited partnership loss for a taxation year and the taxpayer has not reported that amount as such a loss in the taxpayer's return of income for that year, the Minister shall, at the request of the taxpayer, determine, with all due dispatch, the amount of the loss and shall send a notice of determination to the person by whom the return was filed. (1.2)         Paragraphs 56(1) (l) and 60 (o), this Division and Division J, as they relate to an assessment or a reassessment and to assessing or reassessing tax, apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to a determination or redetermination of an amount under this Division or an amount deemed under section 122.61 or 126.1 to be an overpayment on account of a taxpayer's liability under this Part, except that (a)           subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to determinations made under subsections (1.1) and (1.11); (b)           an original determination of a taxpayer's non-capital loss, net capital loss, restricted farm loss, farm loss or limited partnership loss for a taxation year may be made by the Minister only at the request of the taxpayer; and (c)            subsection 164(4.1) does not apply to a determination made under subsection (1.4). (4.3)         Notwithstanding subsections (4), (4.1) and (5), where the result of an assessment or a decision on an appeal is to change a particular balance of a taxpayer for a particular taxation year, the Minister may, or where the taxpayer so requests in writing, shall, before the later of the expiration of the normal reassessment period in respect of a subsequent taxation year and the end of the day that is one year after the day on which all rights of objection and appeal expire or are determined in respect of the particular year, reassess the tax, interest or penalties payable, or redetermine an amount deemed to have been paid or to have been an overpayment, under this Part by the taxpayer in respect of the subsequent taxation year, but only to the extent that the reassessment or redetermination can reasonably be considered to relate to the change in the particular balance of the taxpayer for the particular year.                                 ...

Reasons for Judgment O'Connor, J.T.C.C. [1]            This appeal was heard at Edmonton, Alberta on July 23, 2001 and continued on July 25, 2001. [2]            A joint Book of Exhibits containing numerous tabs was submitted and it was agreed by the parties that the documents contained therein were to be considered as exhibits. [3]            The parties also submitted a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues, which reads as follows: TCC-2000-4321 (GST) I IN THE TAX COURT OF CANADA PRO-EX TRADING CO. ... The Queen, [1998] G.S.T.C. 119 (T.C.C.) the only reported case dealing with section 134, Judge Bowie considered an appeal where the taxpayer argued that it did not sell two cranes in question, but rather transferred them for security purposes. ... The fact that the other parties to the transactions claim no ITCs and the fact that their statements indicate that the transactions were actually loans must be considered. ...