Search - considered

The major issue in that application was whether all aspects of the husband’s income should be considered for spousal support purposes and whether there should be imputation of income in regard to the wife (Reasons for Judgment of Groves J. attached to the Order dated May 18, 2011, Exhibit A-4, paragraph 18). ... Analysis   [8]               It is now settled law that legal fees incurred by the payer of support (either to prevent it from being established or increased, or to decrease or terminate it) cannot be considered to have been incurred for the purpose of earning income, and the courts have never recognized any right to the deduction of these expenditures (Nadeau v. ...

(p)         where the taxpayer was employed in the year as a musician and as a term of the employment was required to provide a musical instrument for a period in the year, an amount (not exceeding the taxpayer's income for the year from the employment, computed without reference to this paragraph) equal to the total of (i)          amounts expended by the taxpayer before the end of the year for the maintenance, rental or insurance of the instrument for that period, except to the extent that the amounts are otherwise deducted in computing the taxpayer's income for any taxation year, and (ii)         such part, if any, of the capital cost to the taxpayer of the instrument as is allowed by regulation; [3]      The Appellant has claimed a capital cost allowance in the amount of $2,088 on a computer as an expense in computing his income from employment. [4]      To establish the assessment, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister"), relied on the assumptions of fact described at paragraph 6 of the Reply to the notice of appeal (the "Reply") as follows: a)          The appellant is a professional musician and is employed as a professor of music at the University of Montréal (hereinafter the "employer"). b)          His employment functions include the research in the field of music and for this the appellant specializes his research on the composition and playing of music on computer. c)          The form T2200, Declaration of Conditions of Employment, completed by the employer and submitted by the appellant, discloses the following: i)           That between January, 2001 and December 2001, the appellant completes some of the conditions of his employment at his residence; ii)          the appellant is not reimbursed for expenses; iii)          That the appellant did not receive any reimbursement for the " frais de recherche en simulation informatique "; iv)         Required that the appellant is to provide a part of his residence and supplies that are needed, for which he will not be reimbursed. d)          In order to complete the research in computer simulations the appellant purchased a Macintosh PC 200. e)          The computer simulation research that occupied the appellant was to compose and play back by computer his compositions. f)           The employer, aside from requiring the appellant to provide part of his residence for his functions, provides the appellant with an office and computer at the university itself. g)          The Macintosh PC200 computer is a general use computer that can be used for other functions such as word processing and email aside from the production and composition of music. h)          The Macintosh PC200 is a computer and cannot be considered a musical instrument. [5]      The Appellant explained that he is a composer and a professor of music at the Université de Montréal (the "University"). ... However, he cannot agree that the musical instrument that the Appellant is required to provide as a term of his employment, may be a computer. [26]     It appears rather evident that a computer cannot be considered a musical instrument if we begin the analysis by comparing traditional musical instruments such as a piano, violin or harp with a computer. [27]     However, a statute can apply to situations which did not exist when it was enacted, if justified by its aim and compatible with its wording. ...

The Queen, [8] and states that the entire substance of a transaction must be considered. ... Linden J.A. considered the words "Where a person... receives a loan,... because or as a consequence of... a... office or employment... ...

Therefore, their letter continued, “it is imperative that both of you are considered employees of the company effective January 1, 1994. ... Also on September 30, an entry opposite Professor Ward’s name reads “Correct J1707” and credits $46,800 to the account. 2 This is the same position Professor Ward held previously when he provided services to Biorem as a consultant. 3 Apparently Professor Ward was to be paid $2,000 in October 1994 and $5,200 in each of November and December 1994. 4 1 therefore considered the book of documents sent by Professor Ward on April 5, 1998 as an Exhibit in this appeal. ...

While it was unnecessary for the purposes of these appeals that I deal at length with the point, the Crown’s position is so out of line with both the law and with prevailing practice and could potentially have such far-reaching effects on any number of appeals before this court that I considered it desirable that the idea be nipped in the bud. ... Canada, [1993] 1 C.T.C. 2306, 93 D.T.C. 298, at C.T.C. page 2310 (T.C.C.), the motions judge considered the following principles relevant to the issue of whether leave was justified at C.T.C. pages 220-21: The Court states further that: other factors, should also be emphasized, including the timeliness of the motion to amend or withdraw, the extent to which the proposed amendments would delay the expeditious trial of the matter, the extent to which a position taken originally by one party has led another party to follow a course of action in the litigation which it would be difficult or impossible to alter and whether the amendments sought will facilitate the court’s consideration of the true substance of the dispute on its merits. ...

Specifically, the Appellant must meet the requirements of an “eligible individual” as defined under section 122.6:   “eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time   (a) resides with the qualified dependant,   (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant,   …   (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing; [6]               For both the CCTB and the GSTC, the children must have resided with her during the Period; her eligibility for the CCTB depends on the additional criterion of whether she was the parent who “primarily fulfilled the responsibility” for her daughters’ “care and upbringing” during the Period. [7]               The Minister’s view is that because the children were not physically in Canada, it cannot be said that they were resident with the Appellant or that the Appellant was primarily responsible for their care. ... Under paragraph (h) of the definition, to determine whether the Appellant is the primary caregiver, the Court must consider the prescribed factors set out in section 6302 of the Income Tax Act Regulations;   For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition “eligible individual” in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant:   (a) the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant;   (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides;   (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant;     (d) the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant;   (e) the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person;   (f) the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis;   (g) the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and   (h) the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides ...

Clause has raised an argument which does not appear to have been directly considered before. ... Clause who did not own an interest in the home at the time the second proposal was made and thus the CRA could not be considered to have compromised its claim against the home to collect Mr.  ...

—For the purposes of subsections (6)... an amount shall not be considered to be payable in a taxation year unless it was paid in the year to the person to whom it was payable or he was entitled in that year to enforce payment thereof. ... Certainly that which the trust wished to show and report—that all the income it (the trust) earned should be considered as allocated—{i.e., paid or payable) to the beneficiaries—was shown in that way. ...

Her Majesty The Queen, 2005 TCC 240, Justice Sheridan of this Court considered the leading case of Symes and found that if the need exists in the absence of the business need, deductibility of the expense is not permitted. ... Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FCA 125, the Federal Court of Appeal stated at paragraph 7:   [7]         It is well established that travel expenses incurred by a taxpayer in travelling to and from his home to his place of work are considered personal expenses. ...

  [16]     The principle by which travel to work has been considered to be a personal expense has generally been restricted to situations in which the taxpayer regularly reports to one or more places of business: McDonald v. ... The appellant’s employment required him to travel to different cutting locations and none of these could be considered a regular place of business ...