Search - considered

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. ...

The Ministère's position is that the amounts of money paid by the health care and social services institutions in consideration of supplies of immovable property made to them by Corélo Inc. by way of lease cannot be considered to be government funding. [3]      The respondent replied by stating that she had assumed the following facts in support of the assessment: [TRANSLATION] (a)         the appellant is a GST registrant; (b)         the appellant was incorporated under Part III of the Companies Act (R.S.Q., c. ... There is no doubt that the rent was paid by the institutions for and in consideration of the occupation of the premises described in a lease; this reality cannot be overshadowed or even downplayed on account of the fact that the institutions that owed the rent received grants that enabled them to pay it. [33]     At the relevant time, Corélo Inc. was a separate, autonomous corporation, even though the evidence showed that the R.H.S.S.B. had considerable influence over all its activities and policies and over its general management. [34]     Even if corporate entities have the same objectives and may ultimately depend on the same funder, this has no effect on their legal autonomy and independence. [35]     When a separate entity is required to attain certain objectives and solve certain problems, that reality cannot suddenly disappear to avoid the obligations associated with its existence. [36]     To carry out its mandate, the R.H.S.S.B. set up a legal structure separate from its own; that entity cannot, for the purposes of certain obligations, disappear or simply be considered non-existent on account of the fact that it shares the same concerns. [37]     Corélo Inc. was incorporated; it became a separate, autonomous intermediary that was fully subject to all legal obligations in terms of its activities and operations. [38]     For an amount to be considered government funding, a number of conditions and requirements must be met; it is not enough to meet just one or even two of the conditions. ...

In reassessing the Appellant in respect of his 1995 and 1996 taxation years, the Minister relied on inter alia, the following assumptions: a)              that the Ontario Court by Order dated November 18, 1994 ordered the Appellant to pay child support in the amount of $3,200.00 per month and spousal support in the amount of $500.00 per month totaling $3,700.00; b)             that the Ontario Court by Order dated March 29, 1995 ordered that $11,100.00 be paid as a prepayment of support for April, May and June, 1995; c)              the Supreme Court of British Columbia by Order dated September 22, 1995, ordered that out of the sale proceeds of the family home in Ontario, the Appellant was to pay his spouse $88,800.00 as a lump sum prepayment of child and spousal support for 2 years; d)             that the Supreme Court of British Columbia by Order dated October 12, 1995, amended the court order of September 22, 1995, to state that of the $88,800.00 paid, $1,500.00 shall be considered arrears of spousal maintenance and $9,600.00 arrears of child maintenance (for a total of $11,100.00) for the months of July, August and September, 1995; e)              that the $11,100.00 ordered to be paid by the Ontario Court by Order dated March 29, 1995 was a prepayment of support for April, May and June, 1995 and since it was a prepayment, it is not deductible in the 1995 year; f)              that the Order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dated October 12, 1995 ordering that the amount of $11,100.00 be considered arrears of spousal maintenance and child support for the months of July, August and September, 1995 were amounts payable on a periodic basis and the Appellant was reassessed to allow that amount as a deduction in the 1995 taxation year; g)             that the remainder of the amount of $88,800.00, being the amount of $77,700.00, and which amount was paid in September, 1995 was paid as a prepayment of support for 2 years following September, 1995; and therefore the amount of $33,300.00 claimed as a deduction in the 1995 year and $44,400.00 in the 1996 year were not properly deductible and the Minister so reassessed; and h)             that the amount of $77,700.00 paid in September, 1995 as a lump sum prepayment of support to be paid in advance to Carla Ostrowski for support payments due from October, 1995 to June, 1997 (as corrected by the Court Order dated October 12, 1995) can not be considered as support payments payable on a periodic basis within the meaning of paragraph 60(b) of the Income Tax Act (the " Act "). ...

The question that the respondent wants answered under Rule 58 simply cannot be considered in a vacuum and in isolation from the large number of surrounding facts which the respondent herself has treated as relevant to the assessments. ... It is inappropriate for the question to be considered in a preliminary motion. ... La Reine, 2001 DTC 5173 (F.C.A.), will have to be considered, reconciled or distinguished. ...