Search - considered

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. ...

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. ...