Search - considered

Moldowan suggests that there may be a number of factors to be considered but we are here concerned with only 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. ... The start-up concept reflects an intention to allow “what is in effect a grace period for emerging operations” [10] and is one factor which may be considered in determining whether a particular venture has a “reasonable expectation of profit”. ...

She considered to a third party entirely she would have asked about a $1,000.00 per month. ... There was no reasonable expectation of profit at any time- hence no “business” from which losses could be deducted; and whether warranted or not on an objective basis the Respondent had allowed the deduction of the claims made for 1989 and 1990 taxation years, which might be considered as “start-up costs”. ... Nor can she realistically claim that there was any viable prospect on the horizon to turn the loss results into profits within a reasonable period of time- and that this was financially sustainable and purposefully undertaken by her, a rather shaky proposition at best, but one that the Courts have considered. ...

He found that the amount received by the Appellant could not be considered “income”, because the ordinary concept of income pertained to recurring receipts and did not extend to a lump sum received because a source of income had been taken away or destroyed. ... After having considered all of the evidence the Court finds as a fact that the amount of the prize received did not constitute “business income”. ... After having considered all of the evidence and the submissions of counsel, the Court finds and declares that the prizes received by the Appellant in the 1992 taxation year are not business income of the Appellant but fall within the taxing parameters of paragraph 56(1)(n) and further that such amounts are “prescribed prizes” within the meaning of Regulation 7700. ...

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. ... Minister of National Revenue^ [17] where Desjardins J.A. noted: Start-up costs, contrary to what the trial judge said, cannot be considered as the basis for an alternative ground of decision. ...

According to him, and he relied more particularly on the McKimmon case referred to earlier, the subject mortgage payments must be considered “as part and parcel of or as a method of financing the payment of this $150,000.00”. ... Syllaba as intimately tied in to the division of matrimonial assets and for this reason he argued that these payments could not be considered as maintenance payments. ... As pointed by Counsel for the Appellant, the mortgage payments were considered to be maintenance payments even though the taxpayer was receiving two other forms of maintenance payments from the former husband, including a monthly amount for the support and maintenance of the taxpayer. ...

The Queen, recently considered the breadth of the word agreement, and found it to encompass more than simply a legally binding contract. [5] Desjardins J.A., in reasons concurred in by Decary J.A. and Chevalier D.J., specifically approved the conclusion of Christie A.C.J. in this Court that the words “agreement in writing”, found in a transitional provision of the Income Tax Act dealing with resource properties, did not require that the agreement create contractual rights and obligations. ... The deeming provision in section 90 of the Indian Act was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Mitchell [6] case. ... It was in that context that the Court considered that the reference to agreements was concerned with obligations of the Crown ancillary to its treaty obligations. ...

According to him, and he relied more particularly on the McKimmon case referred to earlier, the subject mortgage payments must be considered “as part and parcel of or as a method of financing the payment of this $150,000.00”. ... Syllaba as intimately tied in to the division of matrimonial assets and for this reason he argued that these payments could not be considered as maintenance payments. ... As pointed by Counsel for the Appellant, the mortgage payments were considered to be maintenance payments even though the taxpayer was receiving two other forms of maintenance payments from the former husband, including a monthly amount for the support and maintenance of the taxpayer. ...

There is much jurisprudence in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States in which the question whether provisions in a statute are directory or imperative has been considered. ... In others, such prescriptions have been considered as merely directory, the neglect of them involving nothing more than liability to a penalty, if any were imposed, for breach of the enactment. “An absolute enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, but it is sufficient if a directory enactment be obeyed or fulfilled substantially.”^ [2] It is impossible to lay down any general rule for determining whether a provision is imperative or directory.^ [3] “No universal rule,” said Lord Campbell L.C., “can be laid down for the construction of statutes, as to whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. ...

It was also considered desirable that the incumbent of that position had a broad ecumenical experience since he had to deal with a great number of Christian denominations. ... The Appellant’s work for the Canadian Bible Society was also considered by that Society as ministry. ... Accordingly, chaplains in the armed forces or with an institution are generally considered to minister to congregations. ...

In 1977 the Supreme Court of Canada [1] considered the question of what is required by a taxpayer to have a profit or reasonable expectation of profit from a venture so that the expenses of a property would not be categorized a personal or living 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. ... Recently the Federal Court of Appeal has considered anew in Tonn v. R.* [2] the relevancy of reasonable expectation of profit to the deductibility of losses. ...