Search - considered

The objectives of efficiency, effectiveness, practicality and the ‘need to get on with the litigation’ also play a part in the Court’s decision for full disclosure: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v R, 2013 TCC 170 at paragraph 106. [18]         When deciding whether it would exercise its discretion to grant an order for full disclosure of documents, this Court has also considered the importance of the principle of proportionality in tax litigation. ... In the recent decision of Torres v R, 2013 TCC 380, C Miller J. analyzed the existing case law with respect to gross negligence penalties and identified the leading principles which were considered in those cases. ...

. – A payment or transfer of property made pursuant to the direction of, or with the concurrence of, a taxpayer to some other person for the benefit of the taxpayer or as a benefit that the taxpayer desired to have conferred on the other person... shall be included in computing the taxpayer's income to the extent that it would be if the payment or transfer had been made to him. [7] With respect to the submission of counsel for the Appellant that the $84,573 should be considered a loan either to the Appellant or to the Arena Corporation, I find that the evidence does not support this conclusion. ... Moreover, it is difficult to conclude that an amount allegedly paid to save the license of the restaurant could be considered as an ongoing business expense. ...

With respect to its business Kamsel considered itself as the holder of intangible assets represented by a portfolio of leases, and not as owner of capital property represented by the underlying chattels or equipment which were the subject matter of the leases. ... Adams considered the business of the appellant to be essentially the provision of a financing service to both the suppliers and purchasers of such equipment. ...

  [8]               The decision in Huang and Qu considered two issues. ... His conclusion is stated in paragraph 109:   [109]      In my opinion, the Report on Postdoctoral Fellows prepared for the MEQ, describing postdoctoral training as an activity enabling the fellow to develop "expertise" in research in a complementary or more specialized field, and according to which postdoctoral fellows must be considered employees, seems much closer to reality than the T2202A issued to postdoctoral fellows by the Université Laval and other Canadian universities. ...

While the filing of an income tax return for a particular taxation year is not conclusive of residence it is one indication that the Appellant considered himself to be a resident of Canada for that year; (b)      the Appellant also filed an income tax return for the 1997 taxation year. ... [28]     The Appellant testified that he made the following tax payments to the Government of Indonesia:           Re: Salary- 380,590,914 Rupiah            (Note: This amount was withheld by his employer and remitted to the Government of Indonesia)           Re: Retiring Allowance- 335,376,000 Rupiah           (See Exhibits A-6 and A-7) [29]     The Appellant further testified that he made the payment of 335,376,000 Rupiah in connection with the Retiring Allowance after receiving advice from an Indonesian consultant by the name of Jayanegara, a consultant by the name of Sutanto and a tax accountant in Indonesia by the name of Hakeem. [30]     I agree with the position maintained by Counsel for the Appellant that the Retiring Allowance should be considered to have arisen from a source in Indonesia. ...

“Cohabiting spouse” is defined in section 122.6 of the Act as follows:   “cohabiting spouse or common-law partner” of an individual at any time means the person who at that time is the individual's spouse or common-law partner and who is not at that time living separate and apart from the individual and, for the purpose of this definition, a person shall not be considered to be living separate and apart from an individual at any time unless they were living separate and apart at that time, because of a breakdown of their marriage or common-law partnership, for a period of at least 90 days that includes that time;   [5]               Therefore whether a person is a spouse or common-law partner of the particular individual, that person’s income must be included in determining the particular individual’s adjusted income. ... The Queen, 93 DTC 5298 [1], Justice Linden made the following comments:   … Marital status, therefore, can properly be considered an analogous ground for the purposes of section 15….   ...

Income Tax Act 118.3 (1) Credit for mental or physical impairment — Where   (a) an individual has one or more severe and prolonged impairments in physical or mental functions,   (a.1) the effects of the impairment or impairments are such that the individual’s ability to perform more than one basic activity of daily living is significantly restricted where the cumulative effect of those restrictions is equivalent to having a marked restriction in the ability to perform a basic activity of daily living or are such that the individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted or would be markedly restricted but for therapy that   (i) is essential to sustain a vital function of the individual,   (ii) is required to be administered at least three times each week for a total duration averaging not less than 14 hours a week, and   (iii) cannot reasonably be expected to be of significant benefit to persons who are not so impaired,   (a.2) in the case of an impairment in physical or mental functions the effects of which are such that the individual’s ability to perform a single basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted or would be so restricted but for therapy referred to in paragraph (a.1), a medical practitioner has certified in prescribed form that the impairment is a severe and prolonged impairment in physical or mental functions the effects of which are such that the individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted or would be markedly restricted, but for therapy referred to in paragraph (a.1), where the medical practitioner is a medical doctor or, in the case of   (i) a sight impairment, an optometrist,   (ii) a speech impairment, a speech-language pathologist,   (iii) a hearing impairment, an audiologist,   (iv) an impairment with respect to an individual’s ability in feeding or dressing themself, an occupational therapist,   (v) an impairment with respect to an individual’s ability in walking, an occupational therapist, or after February 22, 2005, a physiotherapist, and   (vi) an impairment with respect to an individual’s ability in mental functions necessary for everyday life, a psychologist,   (a.3) in the case of one or more impairments in physical or mental functions the effects of which are such that the individual’s ability to perform more than one basic activity of daily living is significantly restricted, a medical practitioner has certified in prescribed form that the impairment or impairments are severe and prolonged impairments in physical or mental functions the effects of which are such that the individual’s ability to perform more than one basic activity of daily living is significantly restricted and that the cumulative effect of those restrictions is equivalent to having a marked restriction in the ability to perform a single basic activity of daily living, where the medical practitioner is, in the case of   (i) an impairment with respect to the individual’s ability in feeding or dressing themself, or in walking, a medical doctor or an occupational therapist, and   (ii) in the case of any other impairment, a medical doctor,   has certified in prescribed form that the impairment is a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment the effects of which are such that the individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted or would be markedly restricted but for therapy referred to in paragraph (a.1),   (b) the individual has filed for a taxation year with the Minister the certificate described in paragraph (a.2) or (a.3), and   (c) no amount in respect of remuneration for an attendant or care in a nursing home, in respect of the individual, is included in calculating a deduction under section 118.2 (otherwise than because of paragraph 118.2(2)(b.1)) for the year by the individual or by any other person,   there may be deducted in computing the individual’s tax payable under this Part for the year the amount determined by the formula....   118.4 (1) Nature of impairment — For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection,   (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months;   (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living;   (b.1) an individual is considered to have the equivalent of a marked restriction in a basic activity of daily living only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual’s ability to perform more than one basic activity of daily living (including for this purpose, the ability to see) is significantly restricted, and the cumulative effect of those restrictions is tantamount to the individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living being markedly restricted;   (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means   (i) mental functions necessary for everyday life,   (ii) feeding oneself or dressing oneself,   (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual,   (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual,   (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or   (vi) walking;   (c.1) mental functions necessary for everyday life include   (i) memory,   (ii) problem solving, goal-setting and judgement (taken together), and   (iii) adaptive functioning;   (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living; and   (e) feeding oneself does not include   (i) any of the activities of identifying, finding, shopping for or otherwise procuring food, or   (ii) the activity of preparing food to the extent that the time associated with the activity would not have been necessary in the absence of a dietary restriction or regime; and   (f) dressing oneself does not include any of the activities of identifying, finding, shopping for or otherwise procuring clothing.   ...

This is the result of an agreement between the taxpayer and the Canada Revenue Agency that the expenses of only one year, 1994, would be reviewed in detail and this amount would be considered representative of the other years under appeal. [11]     Counsel for the Crown suggests that the ordinary meaning of "lodge" includes a broad range of accommodation, including a hotel. ... The Queen, 93 D.T.C. 5158 (S.C.C.). [15]     I am not aware of any cases that have considered hotels similar to those used by Digital. ...

This is perhaps surprising, but the result is that neither side can be faulted for pursuing this case as a reasonably important principle to have considered by the Court ...   [29]          The approach taken by the taxpayer could not reasonably be considered to have been an attempt to frustrate or defeat the integrity of the self-reporting system. ...

The history of Crown royalties, the resource allowance, and the phase-out of the resource allowance is considered in detail in several papers. ...   [26]     This argument was considered, and rejected, by the Federal Court of Appeal in Irving Oil Ltd. and Munich Reinsurance. ...