Search - considered

However, as the addition amount of $28,000 per JE#10 does not equal the amount of the final Class 8 balance in Sandhu Family Partners, this addition amount is not considered to be a supportable addition and is therefore disallowed as an addition. $28,000.00 There is a similar statement with respect to Class 10 addition of $16,200. ... However, as the addition amount of $16,200 per JE#10 does not equal the amount of the final Class 8 balance in Sandhu Family Partners, this addition amount is not considered to be a supportable addition and is therefore disallowed as an addition. $16,200.00 His reason for making this statement was that having looked at the records available to him the only evidence he had was the entry and the class. ...

To formulate a decision then, the overall evidence must be considered taking into account those of the tests which may be applicable and giving to all the evidence the weight which the circumstances may dictate. ... The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors, which may be of importance, are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk be taken, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task. ...

., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the Court may not interfere. ... If, however, those facts are, in the opinion of the Court, insufficient in law to support the conclusion arrived at by the Minister, his determination cannot stand and the Court is justified in intervening. [20] There are thus four tests which the Tax Court of Canada can apply in deciding whether it is entitled to intervene: the Minister (1) did not have regard to all the circumstances; (2) considered irrelevant factors; (3) contravened a principle of law; (4) based his decision on insufficient facts. [21] The Court continued as follows: In my view, the respondent's position is correct in law except that it does not indicate what powers the Court enjoys once an intervention is deemed to be justified. [22] After considering various points, the Court went on to add: It is therefore appropriate, in the case at bar, to analyze the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act under which the jurisdiction of the Tax Court is exercised in order to determine the type of decision it may render. ...

Sackett was asked why he completed the claim in such a manner if indeed he had not considered himself the head of the business. ... Exhibit R-4, the claim for the lien, shows also that the Appellants considered themselves the only directors of the Corporation at that time. [18]     The Appellants may have agreed to become directors mostly because they wanted to maintain a business for which they had worked hard, as well as to keep a source of income for themselves at a time when employment was scarce, although they may not have wanted the obligations attached by law to the function of directors. ...

In my view, the subsection 56(12) definition of "allowance" is to be read together with subsection 60.1(1) of the Act and the latter subsection construed accordingly. [11] The next factor to be considered is the application of subsection 56(12) as it characterises the ‘allowance payable’ in paragraphs 60(b), (c) or (c.1). ... The budget papers, at page 10, describe what amounts payable to third parties were deductible: Before 1984, for an amount to be considered a deductible allowance, it must have been a fixed sum of money paid directly to the recipient for maintenance and support pursuant to a court order, decree or separation agreement. ...

It is therefore a realistic and relatively conservative estimate. [17] Subsection 118.4(1) of the Act reads as follows: 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; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and 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; and (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. [Emphasis added.] [18] Counsel for the appellant argued that, even though breathing is not referred to in paragraph 118.4(1)(c) of the Act, it should be considered in the same way as the activities described in that paragraph, for otherwise section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be violated. ...

  [11]         The assessments that remain to be considered are the income tax assessment for the 2002 taxation year and GST assessments for quarterly reporting periods in 2002 and 2003. ... According to the respondent, the CRA considered Algonquin to have filed an objection to the income tax assessment for 2003. ...

The fact that part of the statute was being considered for the first time, or that the Court’s decision might have some bearing on other taxpayers, does not give the appeal the character of a test case ... The events raised by counsel for the Respondent respecting what she considered to be an unreasonable amount of time for preparation of the Appellant’s case are well taken. ...

All this, combined with the fact that the taxpayer simply forgot — no other explanation was provided — to attend the hearing, was considered by Sheridan J. in dismissing the motion to set aside the default judgment ... The principles which should be taken into account in considering whether a judgment should be set aside were considered by Bowman A.C.J. in Farrow v. ...

  [15]          For the purposes of subsection 323(1), directors are considered as being such either de jure or de facto. ... R., [2003] G.S.T.C. 1 (TCC), the Court considered whether proof of a person’s registration as a director is determinative of that person’s status as a director. ...