Search - considered

He stated that since he was considered as a contractor, he could set his own rates and did so.   6.    Recent jurisprudence has analyzed the importance of the intention of the parties as to the nature of their relationships, concluding, essentially, that if their common intention is an independent contractor relationship and if the facts can support that position even though some of the facts may not, intention will be considered. ...

The Law   [9]      The definition of “eligible individual” at section 122.6 of the Act at the time was worded as follows:   "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 purpose 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. [10]     For the purposes of paragraphs (g) and (h) of the definition of “eligible individual” at section 122.6 of the Act, sections  6301 and 6302 of Part LXIII of the Income Tax Regulations (the Regulations) provide as follows:   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 ...

  [26]     Although the Appellant can be considered an internal manager, her limited experience and her restricted influence (to say the least) on the management of the affairs of the business meant that she could neither prevent nor remedy the violation ... The fact that one is an authorized signatory on a company's bank accounts is not, in and of itself, sufficient for the signatory to be considered a director ...

Given the existence of this personal element, I am required to analyze the rental activity to determine whether it was undertaken in a sufficiently commercial manner to be considered a source of income ...     [14]     These conditions appear to me reasonable in the circumstances, subject to the observation that the Appellant might have considered modifying these and other requirements in order to stimulate rentals. ...

Even where the same "payor" is involved, the determination of the status of each worker must be considered according to the evidence of the relationship of each individual worker with the payor ...   [17]     Having considered the overall relationship between Mr. Foulston and the Cozarts and, in light of their clear intention that he work as an independent contractor, I am satisfied that the evidence shows a degree of autonomy consistent with Mr. ...

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 he takes, 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. ... In order to make this determination the four criteria set out in Wiebe Door are factors to be considered.   19.       ...

  [17]     Having decided that there is a personal element, it remains to be considered whether the arrangement was sufficiently commercial to constitute a source of income ... Salgado suggested that his home office be considered non‑personal use. ...

  [4]               The documentation submitted to evidence shows that the long-term disability pension sought by the Appellant is considered non-taxable, both by the insurer and the insured (see letter from the Canadian Dental Association to the Appellant, dated July 4, 2007, Exhibit A-2), because insurance premiums paid by the Appellant were not deducted from his income over the years. This is exactly why the Minister disallowed the disability pension that is the subject of the proceedings brought by the Appellant, because it is considered non-taxable ...

By estimating these sales using wine and beer purchases, the amount of the loss of these drinks, inevitable when operating a restaurant, had to be considered. ...   [5]               At the very start of the hearing, counsel for the Respondent announced that, in addition to the prior concessions made, he was ready to reduce the GST collected or collectable from $62,458 to a round number, $50,000, to take into consideration that the losses calculated by the Minister, around 2% of beverages sold (various brands of beer and wine), may not have been sufficient and that all "liquids" should be considered. ...

Therefore, the elements of control in this case cannot reasonably be considered to be inconsistent with the parties' understanding that the dancers were independent contractors.   67.    The same can be said of all of the factors, considered in their entirety, in the context of the nature of the activities of the RWB and the work of the dancers engaged by the RWB. ...