Search - considered

As stated in 118.4(1)(d) above, social activity is not considered a basic activity of daily living. ... According to Interpretation Bulletin IT-519R2- Medical Expense and Disability, "disabling ailments and conditions must generally be considered on a case-by-case basis, since it is the effect of the impairment on the ability to perform the activities of daily living, which effect differs between individuals, rather than the ailment or condition itself, which determines whether an individual is eligible for the disability tax credit. ...

Upon investigation, the Minister of National Revenue concluded that he had not worked 11 weeks, but rather 12: the week of June 14 to June 20, 1992, also had to be considered insurable. ... On the contrary, his failure to act upon receipt of the letter from his counsel and letter from the Court stating that, as a result of the discontinuance, his file was considered closed, instead demonstrates negligence on his part. ...

Thompson, Boose and Young were not related parties as defined. [17]     Paragraph 251(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act reads as follows:... it is a question of fact whether persons not related to each other were at a particular time dealing with each other at arm's length. [18]     In essence, the Act appears to be structured in this manner so that the Minister must be satisfied that the individual is dealing with the employer similar to the way an outside employee or arm's length employee would deal. [19]     In considering the meaning of "arm's length" in section 251 of the Income Tax Act I have considered the comments of His Honour Judge Bonner in William J. ... Accordingly, I hold that none of them were employed in insurable employment. [22]     In my opinion the facts in the Crawford case and the facts in the present appeal are virtually identical. [23]     I have carefully considered the sworn testimony of Mr. ...

It is rather surprising to see that the appellant did not consider it appropriate to clarify the situation unequivocally as soon as she received the first notices. [12]     Counsel for the respondent has argued that, the appellant being a registrant until December 31, 1995, she should have collected and remitted the GST on her business activities, even if she could have been considered a small supplier given that her annual income was less than $30,000 during the period from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 1995. ... It is surprising that counsel for the respondent did not argue at that point that the exception provided for in section 166 of the Act did not apply since the appellant was a registrant and, therefore, he was obliged to collect and remit the GST. [14]     Counsel for the respondent has therefore considered that the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Hegerat (supra) was rendered per incuriam and must not be followed. [15]     I agree. ...

This raises the interesting possibility obviously considered by the Supreme Court of Canada of an activity, with some personal element, being carried out in such a commercial manner, that despite no reasonable expectation of profit, it still constitutes a business. ... There was some evidence of a list of sailing associations being considered for contact. ...

Minister of National Revenue, [2008] 1 C.T.C. 220, the Federal Court of Appeal considered Wolf v. ... As the parties considered that they were engaged in an independent contractor relationship and as they acted in a manner that was consistent with this relationship, I do not believe that it was open to the Tax Court Judge to disregard their understanding …. [3] [Emphasis added ...

(the payor) because he considered it to be excluded employment since a similar contract for employment would not have been entered into if the worker and the payor had been dealing with each other at arm's length ... It should be noted that the worker was unable to provide the number of hours of work he had accumulated outside his regular work hours, which I recall were from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday;   (ii)               If not for his constant contributions, his regular presence, skills as animator and the warm welcome he gave all the payor's clients, the number of patrons at the payor's bar would have dropped by at least half;     (iii)             he fully deserved the bonuses the payor gave him, which he considered more as salary adjustments considering his participation in the payor's company. ...

  [15]          I was not referred to any judicial decisions of this Court which have considered an application of this type. ... The cases which have considered Rule 59.06 have adopted the definition of fraud set out by the House of Lords in Derry v. ...

Eberle said that he never considered the possibility of hiring someone to replace him ...   [20]     The final factor that should be considered is the intention of the parties concerning the nature of the work relationship. ...

The law   [6]               The definition of "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act (Act) read as follows at the time:     "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,   (c) is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse or common-law partner of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year,   (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b), and   (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse or common-law partner is, a Canadian citizen or a person who   (i) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,   (ii) is a temporary resident within the meaning of the  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  , who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or   (iii) is a protected person within the meaning of the  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  ,   (iv) was determined before that time to be a member of a class defined in the  Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations  made under the  Immigration Act,   and for the purposes of this definition   (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent,   (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and   (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing;   [7]               For the purposes of paragraphs (g) and (h) of the definition of "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, sections 6301 and 6302 of Part LXIII of the Income Tax Regulations (the Regulations) provide the following:   NON-APPLICATION OF PRESUMPTION   6301. (1) For the purposes of paragraph (g) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of that definition does not apply in the circumstances where   (a)  the female parent of the qualified dependant declares in writing to the Minister that the male parent, with whom she resides, is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of each of the qualified dependants who reside with both parents;   (b) the female parent is a qualified dependant of an eligible individual and each of them files a notice with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant;   (c) there is more than one female parent of the qualified dependant who resides with the qualified dependant and each female parent files a notice with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the qualified dependant; or   (d) more than one notice is filed with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant who resides with each of the persons filing the notices if such persons live at different locations ... 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 ...