Search - considered

Another parol “crop sharing" agreement was considered by the courts in Park v. ... According to Porter the shareholders always considered the appellant’s land holdings to be the “family farm”. ... All of these arguments must be considered in the context of the provisions of The Landlord and Tenant Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. ...

.* [1] In addition to the statutory definition the Act sets out certain rules which are to be considered in determining whether a partnership does or does not exist. ... If indeed Caroline considered herself a partner and if partnership was a concern of hers particularly at the time of the acquisition of the agency her failure to raise this issue with the accountants seems odd. ... There was not a shred of evidence that “outsiders” considered Caroline a partner. ...

Harry’s entitlement to 25 per cent of the proceeds of an eventual sale which in my opinion has an inherent value, must be considered however, in the light of another provision of the same June 1969 agreement by which David could, after Harry’s death, buy 1,000 of Harry’s 2,000 preferred shares. I do not doubt that both these factors were considered in arriving at a negotiated price of $69,000 for Harry’s interest in the company. ... Adjustments in estimating the value of the common shares depending upon which shareholder had control of the company (particularly after the 1969 agreement), adjustments relative to acceptable levels of remuneration of shareholders and adjustments with respect to special considerations of a forced sale (if indeed the sale of shares to David was what is generally conceived as being a forced sale) must, as suggested by counsel for the respondent, be considered in arriving at a fair market value of the shares. ...

The Court also had the benefit of the explicit and well-considered judgment of the Federal Court in Hillsdale Shopping Centre Limited v The Queen, [1981] CTC 322; 81 DTC 5261 which dealt with what was then Parcel “J” of the same large tract of land, while this appeal deals with Parcel “M” (also referred to in Hillsdale, (supra))). ... Since the date of acquisition of Parcel “M” was separate from and later than the rest of the 450-acre raw land development parcel, it is contended by the appellant that it can only be considered as having been so dedicated to its use as a shopping plaza site for purposes of renting the store premises when constructed. ... There was no evidence of substance which supports a conclusion that during the intervening period (1962 to 1976), Mr Hill considered as serious the prospect of making “Parcel M” into a viable investment of a real estate rental nature. ...

The respondent’s contention is that the appellant had no gross income in 1976 and only had a gross income of $16.95 for 1977, and the business had no reasonable expectation of profit, and therefore pursuant to the Income Tax Act the said amount must be considered as personal expenses and hence not deductible. 2. ... Even if a portion of the expenses could be considered to have been incurred in creating a capital asset, the Court ruled that when such a plan proves abortive, the costs of preliminary studies are revenue expenses. ... The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer’s training, the taxpayer’s intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ...

In his view, although the present use of the White property as a hobby farm with its aesthetic appeal and its capability of supporting some stock was its best use, he considered that subdividing and selling 6 to 12 acreage parcels in the next 5 to 10 years could be feasible. ... It was argued that the size of a potential residential development in Bellevue in 1971 only be considered in that context as well. ... From his evidence it was apparent that a ten-year projection had been considered as well. ...

With respect to IT-371, each of the factors will be considered seriatim. (1) Profits The profits before capital cost allowance of Combined, the corporation involved in this appeal, from the combination of leasing, rental, development and sale of real property have been steadily rising since 1972, the year in which Mr George Kirkland acquired control of the corporation. ... The time, attention and effort of agents or contractors and sub-contractors must be considered under Interpretation Bulletin IT-371. ... It was brought to his attention that a serious question arose from that situation — whether the rental operation could be considered a “business”, that is — if there was a “reasonable expectation of profit”? ...

Recently the Federal Court of Appeal considered the concept of “chief source of income” in Timpson v. ... In order for farming to be considered a chief source of income it must be a major preoccupation for the taxpayer. ... I consider the capital committed to be an important indicator, but not the only indicator, of whether the taxpayer considered the farming business to be a potentially profitable one. ...

Moldowan suggests that there may be a number of factors to be considered but we are here concerned only with three: Time spent, capital committed and profitability. ... From this it is clear that no single factor is necessarily determinative of the issue but each must be considered and given the weight it deserves in the particular circumstances before the Court. ... I add that in view of my conclusion with respect to the application of subsection 31(1) of the Act the allocation of expenses issue is moot and need not be considered. ...

., Federal Court of Canada- Trial Division- considered the appeal of a taxpayer who was employed by the Province of New Brunswick which had entered into a contract with the Canadian International Development Agency to provide services for the purpose of establishing and administering dairy farms in Malawi in return for a fee and reimbursement of certain expenses. ... Wetston J. decided that the Province’s main or preponderant purpose for entering into the contract was not profit nor did it have any reasonable expectation of profit therefrom but in the course of his analysis, Wetston J. at page D.T.C. 6382 stated: While I have considered a number of the plaintiffs arguments, there is clearly some doubt as to the meaning of the word “business” in subsections 8(10) and 122.3(1) of the Act. ... These rules were considered to have discouraged Canadian employers from using Canadian residents to perform certain foreign contracts. ...