Search - considered

I will address this argument immediately. [8]      On one hand, even if the Minister had only considered the December 28, 1996, transfer at the time of the assessment, the benefit received by the Appellant at the time was, according to the report of the expert produced by the Respondent, $51,145 [($8,044 + $43,181)- $80], and therefore far greater than the $32,866 Louis Leclair owed at that time, which allowed for the Appellant to be assessed under section 160 of the Act. [9]      On the other hand, the Minister is free to raise any argument in support of his assessment as long as there is no prejudice to the Appellant by the surprise effect of the Minister's new allegations (see Loewen v. ... The Minister then considered that by transferring his shares, Louis Leclair also transferred the "amount owing to the shareholder" account to the Appellant. [19]     This was confirmed by documents prepared by a CCRA auditor, on the faith of information provided by Mr. ...

M.N.R. (1987), 74 N.R. 255, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the word "parts" in the context of the application of the Customs Tariff, at page 4:... ... He therefore concludes that the services supplied by the various trades to add the hoistway to the residential complex cannot be considered as zero-rated supplies of services for the installation of the lift. [13]          The appellant explained in his testimony that the wheelchair lift's supplier could not build the hoistway because it was prohibited from doing so by the Régie du bâtiment. ...

Coppley Noyes & Randall Limited, [5] which sets out the following factors to be considered in determining a doubtful debt: the time element, a history of the account, financial position of the customer and the general business condition in the locality where the debtor lives or operates, as well as general economic conditions. ... Had the Appellant attempted to collect the debt or stopped its funding, CPC would have had to close its six stores. [16]     The Respondent relied on the fact that the Appellant and CPC were not dealing with each other at arm's length which, I believe, was considered to be the Respondent's strongest argument. ...

Summary of Law [11]         Under the GST Legislation, taxable supplies that are considered to be made in a province that is not participating in the federal value-added tax system are taxed at a 5% rate (the 5% rate is referred to as the GST), unless the taxable supply is zero‑rated. [1] A taxable supply that is considered to be made in a province that is participating in the value-added tax system is taxed at both the 5% rate and the rate applicable for supplies made in the particular participating province (the combined rate is referred to as the HST), unless the taxable supply is zero-rated. [2] [12]         Under the GST Legislation, the tax is imposed on sales of new homes. ...

Having considered whether the Tonn decision purported to alter the law as stated in Moldowan, Robertson, J.A. continued at 5423: Tonn simply affirms the common-sense understanding that it is not the place of the courts to second-guess the business acumen of a taxpayer whose commercial venture turns out to be less profitable than anticipated. ... Having considered all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the plan that the Appellant followed was realistic in its ability to produce a profit on the subject properties. ...

Had SGI's initial offer contained in Exhibit A-1 been accepted outright by the appellant, it may well have been considered to be a retiring allowance that was taxable pursuant to subparagraph 56(1)(a)(ii) or as an indirect payment pursuant to subsection 56(2). ... Had the employee benefit plan not been established, the payment could have been considered to be a benefit pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(a) or an indirect payment pursuant to subsection 56(2). ...

“direct that a broad scope of inclusion be considered as to what constitutes a sufficient connection between the loss of employment and the amounts received” (see Anderson v. ... As to the taxability of the award for damages, obviously it is not taxable under paragraph 5(1)(«) as these damages cannot be considered remuneration for services rendered. ...

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; (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 ...

It is only in special circumstances that clothing purchases are not considered a personal expense. ... In Charron, it does not seem as though the appropriate class was discussed, but I considered this issue when drafting these reasons ...

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. ... The reference to capital cost allowance must be considered in the context in which the statement was made. ...