Search - considered

Our position is supported by an article from the 1989 Conference Report, 14:22, which clearly indicates that each activity must be considered as a separate business. ... However, the auditor’s report indicates on the contrary that he considered GNC to be carrying on only a single business, but that there were two activities. ... The second question must now be considered, namely whether the second condition contained in s. 88(1.1)(e)(ii) of the Act was met. ...

The Appellant considered himself out of the Corporations as of May 21, 1991 notwithstanding that he continued to hold the shares and did not resign as director. ... Pollack may have let Bagri know about the failure of remittances but he did not tell the Appellant of same as he considered that the Appellant was no longer a “partner” in the businesses of the Corporations. ... In any event, he certainly must be considered as an outside director from and after the Agreement of May 21, 1991. 2. ...

On October 13, 1992, according to the minutes (Tab 48, Exhibit I-1), the appellant was considered to be the company’s president. ... The appellant therefore had to be considered a de facto director and to assume the responsibilities imposed on him by law. ... However, based on a review of the above evidence in the light of the case law and other authorities, the appellant must be considered a de facto director, whether or not he is a shareholder or de jure director. ...

Moreover, where a penalty is imposed under subsection 163(2)…, if a taxpayer’s conduct is consistent with two viable and reasonable hypotheses, one justifying the penalty and one not, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the taxpayer and the penalty must be deleted. [37] Turning to the respondent Crown, its initial submission is that the proposed statute-barred issue was not pleaded and so should not be considered, noting as well that the appellant is represented by experienced counsel. [38] Further, the respondent cites Cassan v. ... I reference in particular Joseph Chan’s clear statement in 2017 through his lawyer that he had retained beneficial ownership of the funds in the account for his lifetime, which included the three taxation years in issue. [41] That 2017 statement that Joseph considered that he was the beneficial owner of the account is borne out by his conduct and that of the appellant during the relevant period. ... The appellant considered the funds in the account as belonging to his father. [43] The fact that some or most of the funds paid into the account were ill-gotten gains of Joseph does not go to the nature of Joseph’s interest in the account during the relevant three year period. [44] As well Joseph’s intent, as stated in 2017 via his lawyer, was that the account go to the appellant upon Joseph’s passing. ...

That subsection, as it applied in 1986, read as follows: 55(1) For the purposes of this subdivision, where the result of one or more sales, exchanges, declarations of trust, or other transactions of any kind whatever is that a taxpayer has disposed of property under circumstances such that he may reasonably be considered to have artificially or unduly (a) reduced the amount of his gain from the disposition, (b) created a loss from the disposition, or (c) increased the amount of his loss from the disposition, the taxpayer’s gain or loss, as the case may be, from the disposition of the property shall be computed as if such reduction, creation or increase, as the case may be, had not occurred. For the subsection to apply a taxpayer must have disposed of property under circumstances such that he may reasonably be considered to have artificially or unduly created a loss from the disposition or increased the amount of his loss from the disposition. ... (supra) at paragraph 87 at pages 45 and 46: It is well established in the jurisprudence of this Court that no “business purpose” is required for a transaction to be considered valid under the Income Tax Act, and that a taxpayer is entitled to take advantage of the Act even where a transaction is motivated solely by the minimization of tax: Stubart Investments Ltd. v. ...

I considered that he already owed me money, but I said: “Sure, okay”. Then, gradually, each time there was a cheque, like that, for personal needs, I considered that it was... ... For example, as appears from the passage of her testimony reproduced at paragraph 6 of these reasons, the appellant said the following: [TRANSLATION] “I considered that he already owed me money”. ...

I have considered the children’s proposed budget prepared by the Wife; certain expenses i.e. housing appear somewhat high and one of them, life insurance is erroneous. ... But that is of little assistance to her cause since what facts the Georgia Court may have considered or was entitled to consider in granting the Decree is not germane to my determination of whether the maintenance payments received by the Appellant in 1990 and 1991 were properly included in her income by the Minister. ... This defence was considered by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Independent Order of Foresters (1989), 26 C.P.R. (3d) 229 at p. 233: The doctrine simply means that a person “obeying” a valid provincial statute may, in certain circumstances, be exempt from provisions of a valid federal statute. ...

E-15), as amended, for the following reasons: (a) the appellant is actively involved in the operation of vending machines known as single-coin devices; (b) the respondent has not considered the technical limitations of the appellant's devices in that the vending machines cannot collect the tax from the consumer; (c) the appellant's single-coin devices cannot be programmed or their mecanisms altered and, unlike multi-coins electronic devices, it cannot collect the tax; (d) to comply with the tax, the appellant will have either to increase its prices substantially or modify its devices, which is not the objective of taxation and which, in any case, cannot be done using existing technology; (e) the appellant alone thus bears the burden of a mandate that technically it cannot perform, which means that it must pay out of its own revenue the tax which it cannot collect from the consumer; (f) when Parliament imposes taxes, permits or licences, the amounts involved result in direct cost increases of 25 to 35 percent, which is discriminatory and intolerable for the appellant; (g) collection of the sales tax in respect of this industry is discriminatory and unfair and results in improper taxation by imposing an enormous financial burden on that industry; (h) there are two substantial difficulties with the principle of taxation: the question whether it is possible for the agent to collect the tax and the fact that the agent only has an obligation to collect what would be paid by the consumer; (i) the appellant is unable to collect the amounts claimed by the respondent; (j) furthermore, on January 8, 1997, the respondent granted a credit of $28,582.27 to the appellant for the period from July 1, 1994, to June 30, 1996; (k) in the circumstances, in the event the assessment in issue is well-founded, it is imperative that the parties agree on the amount of the assessment covering the period from January 1, 1991, to June 30, 1994; 7. ... One reason might be — and I speak honestly here — these telephone companies make millions and are very important in the economy, but we who are involved in bulk vending are considered sometimes second-class citizens; we just operate peanut and candy machines. ... The first consideration should therefore be to determine the purpose of the legislation, whether as a whole or as expressed in a particular provision. 30 5.03.2 If the purpose of the Act (spirit, object, intention) is considered in the instant case, the Act provides that the tax is payable by “the recipient of the supply”, not by “every person who makes a taxable supply, as an agent” (s. 221). 31 In the instant case, because of the mechanism of the device, it was not possible in practice to charge the tax and collect it unless staggering expenses were incurred (4.01.3). ...

A base taxation year is a recent year which is looked to for financial information of the parties to be considered in respect of a current CCB payment period. ... According to Côté, supra, an interpretation can be considered absurd if it leads to ridiculous or frivolous consequences, if it is extremely unreasonable or inequitable, if it is illogical or incoherent, or if it is incompatible with the provisions or with the object of the legislative enactment (at p. 378-80). ... The FCA considered whether the Minister could properly assess interest and late filing penalties on a taxpayer who owed GST of $736,864 but was also owed a rebate of $860,665 (i.e., the taxpayer was in a net positive position). ...

Background [5] The Court has not heard any oral evidence nor considered any affidavit evidence and thus what follows is a summary of the pleadings and the oral and written representations provided in the context of the Motion. [6] The Appellant is a holding corporation that has been a resident of Canada on a continuous basis since it was incorporated under the Alberta Corporations Act in 1963. ... It adds that paragraph 28.1 is a statement of mixed fact and law and therefore cannot be considered a misrepresentation. ... The Queen, 2003 DTC 199 (“Imperial Oil”), the purpose of the “fresh step rule” is to ensure the orderly movement of litigation and “implies a waiver of an irregularity that might otherwise have been attacked” (para. 20). [35] Although a motion to strike a pleading pursuant to section 53 is a distinct remedy, the jurisprudence has established that section 8 should be considered. ...