Search - considered

  [16]          A person who failed to report net tax by failing to file GST returns can be considered to have knowingly evaded tax but he cannot be considered to have made a false statement in a return (see Lee v. ...

The parties do not intend that the Contractor be considered an employee, agent, servant or representative of the WCB [board]. [7]      When officials of the Canada Revenue Agency (the "CRA") reviewed this situation, they determined that Dr. ... No. 3- Ownership of Tools [21]     The next factor that has been considered by the Courts is the ownership of tools. ...

It was just a statement of where the company was and her interest in the company is considered as part of the company". [6]      Robert Ashley testified that AYSH went out of business in 1995 and alleges that its only outstanding liability was the purported indebtedness of $55,000 to the Appellant. ... This amount was considered by the Appellant's husband as a loan by the Appellant to AYSH. ...

The question of when a debt is to be considered uncollectible is a matter of the taxpayer's own judgment as a prudent businessman. ... Fisher described how this determination should be made: For the purposes of the Income Tax Act, therefore, a bad debt may be designated as the whole or a portion of a debt which the creditor, after having personally considered the relevant factors mentioned above in so far as they are applicable to each particular debt, honestly and reasonably determines to be uncollectable at the end of the fiscal year when the determination is required to be made, notwithstanding that subsequent events may transpire under which the debt, or any portion of it, may in fact, be collected. ...

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Lamarre, J.T.C.C. [1]      This is an appeal from an assessment made under the Excise Tax Act (" Act ") by which the Minister of National Revenue ("Minister") denied the appellant a goods and services tax ("GST") new housing rebate of $2,099.62 on the ground that one of the conditions imposed by subsection 256(2) of the Act had not been met. [2]      The relevant parts of subsection 256(2) of the Act read as follows: 256(2) Rebate for owner-built homes- Where (a) a particular individual constructs or substantially renovates, or engages another person to construct or substantially renovate for the particular individual, a residential complex that is a single unit residential complex or a residential condominium unit for use as the primary place of residence of the particular individual or a relation of the particular individual,... the Minister shall, subject to subsection (3), pay a rebate to the particular individual.... [3]      In making the assessment, the Minister relied on the facts found in subparagraphs 4(b) et seq. of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, which read as follows: [TRANSLATION] (b)    the Appellant was not a registrant during the period at issue; (c)     the Appellant is claiming a new housing tax (GST) rebate to which he is not entitled for the following reasons: (i)        all of the Appellant's official addresses are in the Montréal area, that is, 90 Rue Lacaille in St-Constant, Quebec J5A 1B2; (ii)      in 1998, the Appellant had a residence or house constructed at 1102 Chester in Val-Bélair, Quebec, on land he had purchased in 1996; (iii)     the Appellant worked as a police officer in the Montréal area before, during and after the period at issue; (iv)      the Appellant lived with his spouse and children at 90 Rue Lacaille in St-Constant before, during and after the period at issue; (v)      the house in respect of which the rebate was applied for is not the primary place of residence of the Appellant or his relations; (vi)     the Val-Bélair residence in respect of which the new housing tax (GST) rebate was applied for is not and has never been inhabited by the Appellant's relations, that is, his spouse and children, as their primary place of residence, and this was the case before, during and after the period at issue; (vii)    the Appellant sold the Val-Bélair house on or about October 16, 2000, without having used it as his primary place of residence; (viii) the Appellant's children attended school in the Montréal area and not in Val-Bélair, which is in the Québec area; (ix)     the Appellant's wife attended the Université de Montréal and subsequently found a job in the Montréal area during the period at issue; (x)      for insurance policy purposes, the Val-Bélair property was considered a secondary residence; (xi)     the Appellant's situation is not one for which a new housing rebate can be accepted by the respondent since the condition in section 256(2) of the Excise Tax Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. ... The appellant also said that there was no telephone in the house because they used a cellular telephone. [10]     Moreover, the appellant explained that the insurance company had considered the St-Constant house their principal residence because it was not possible to have two principal residences on an insurance policy. ...

"specified investment business" has the meaning assigned by subsection 125(7)... 125(7)      Definitions             In this section, " active business carried on by a corporation "- "active business carried on by a corporation" means any business carried on by the corporation other than a specified investment business or a personal services business and includes an adventure or concern in the nature of trade; " Canadian-controlled private corporation "- "Canadian-controlled private corporation" means a private corporation that is a Canadian corporation other than a corporation controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by one or more non-resident persons, by one or more public corporations (other than a prescribed venture capital corporation) or by any combination thereof; " income of the corporation for the year from an active business "- "income of the corporation for the year from an active business" means the total of (a)            the corporation's income for the year from an active business carried on by it including any income for the year pertaining to or incident to that business, other than income for the year from a source in Canada that is a property (within the meaning assigned by subsection 129(4)), and (b)            the amount, if any, included under subsection 12(10.2) in computing the corporation's income for the year; " personal services business "- [not applicable] " specified investment business "- "specified investment business" carried on by a corporation in a taxation year means a business (other than a business carried on by a credit union or a business of leasing property other than real property) the principal purpose of which is to derive income from property (including interest, dividends, rents or royalties), unless (a)            the corporation employs in the business throughout the year more than five full-time employees, or (b)            in the course of carrying on an active business, any other corporation associated with it provides managerial, administrative, financial, maintenance or other similar services to the corporation in the year and the corporation could reasonably be expected to require more than five full-time employees if those services had not been provided; [3]            Further paragraph 14 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-73R5 provides as follows: The principal purpose of the corporation's business must be determined annually after the facts relating to that business carried on by that corporation in that year have been considered and analyzed. ... The Minister of National Revenue has considered the reasons set out in your objection and all the relevant facts. ...

[10]          The matter was considered in the Exchequer Court in the context of paragraph 11(10)(c) of the former Income Tax Act in Luks [No. 2] v. ... (T.C.C.), this Court determined that clothing could be considered to be "supplies" but could not be "consumed". ...

(b) the individual has filed for a taxation year with the Minister the certificate described in paragraph (a.2), and (c) [...] [7]            The requirements for the eligibility for a disability tax credit are set out in subsection 118.4: (1) 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. [8]            Two disability tax credit certificates were completed by Ms. ... Canada [1]. [12]          The Federal Court of Appeal and this Court have considered taxpayers to be entitled to a disability tax credit where the effects of a taxpayer's impairment markedly restrict the taxpayer's ability to perform one basic activity of daily living notwithstanding a medical practitioner's certificate would otherwise have denied the tax credit. ...

However the general rule is that food expenses are considered personal and are not deductible. ... I have reviewed other cases dealing with the deduction of food expenses and although there is some authority to the effect that providing room and board to strangers may justify the deduction of food expenses, I was unable to find any authority to the effect that food expenses in relation to a person's daughter can be considered as a deductible expense. ...

He made it clear that he always considered himself and CASSR to be one and the same. ... While these added value to, and ultimately resulted in a work capable of ownership, hence property, the services themselves were not capable of ownership and therefore should not be considered property. ...