Search - considered

The appellant incurred expenses of $63,609 in the 2016 taxation year that would be considered allowable moving expenses if the appellant was eligible to claim moving expenses. 13.   ... The Appellant’s former home in Australia remained vacant until it was sold in December 2016. [6]   The Appellant stated that when making her decision to move to Canada, she considered the expense of moving and the relief for that expense she believed she would receive in the form of a deduction from income. ...

Subsection 60(0.1) Idem (o.1)  the amount, if any, by which the lesser of (i)  the total of all legal expenses (other than those relating to a division or settlement of property arising out of, or on a breakdown of, a marriage or common-law partnership) paid by the taxpayer in the year or in any of the 7 preceding taxation years to collect or establish a right to an amount of (A)  a benefit under a pension fund or plan (other than a benefit under the  Canada Pension Plan or a provincial pension plan as defined in section 3 of that Act) in respect of the employment of the taxpayer or a deceased individual of whom the taxpayer was a dependant, relation or legal representative, or (B)  a retiring allowance of the taxpayer or a deceased individual of whom the taxpayer was a dependant, relation or legal representative, and (ii)  the amount, if any, by which the total of all amounts each of which I (A)  an amount described in clause 60(o.1)(I)(A) or 60(o.1)(I)(B) (I)  that is received after 1985, (II)  in respect of which legal expenses described in subparagraph 60(o.1)(I) were paid, and (III)  that is included in computing the income of the taxpayer for the year or a preceding taxation year, or (B)  an amount included in computing the income of the taxpayer under paragraph 56(1)(l.1) for the year or a preceding taxation year, exceeds the total of all amounts each of which is an amount deducted under paragraph 60(j), 60(j.01), 60(j.1) or 60(j.2) in computing the income of the taxpayer for the year or a preceding taxation year, to the extent that the amount may reasonably be considered to have been deductible as a consequence of the receipt of an amount referred to in clause 60(o.1)(ii)(A), exceeds (iii)  the portion of the total described in subparagraph 60(o.1)(I) in respect of the taxpayer that may reasonably be considered to have been deductible under this paragraph in computing the income of the taxpayer for a preceding taxation year; [11]   Paragraph 8(l)(b) of the Act provides that a taxpayer, in computing income from an office or from employment, may deduct legal expenses paid by a taxpayer in order to collect or to establish a right to an amount owed to the taxpayer that, if received by the taxpayer, would be required to be included in computing the taxpayer’s income. [12]   Similarly, subsection 60(o.1) of the Act allows for the deduction, in computing a taxpayer’s income, of legal expenses paid by a taxpayer to collect a retiring allowance or a pension benefit to which they were entitled, up to the amount received. ...

In the case of Yates, the Tax Court was clear that the  Act  contains no provision to allow a deduction of contributions paid to a foreign insurance plan. [7] The court also likened national insurance contributions to CPP contributions or RSP premiums, which are not considered a “tax” in Canada. ... Zong would possibly receive a present deduction in Canada greatly exceeding the amount of tax he may eventually pay in the UK; the UK income tax will be imposed against pension income, not his present employment income. [15]   Lastly, the issue of prospective tax has been considered. ...

In Stewart, the Supreme Court reasserted that certain non-exhaustive and unprioritized factors should be considered; such factors being described previously in Moldowan v. ... There was no source of business income against which the claimed expenses may be deducted. [30]   Since no business exists, the issues concerning the business purpose for and reasonableness of the denied expenses need not be considered. ...

As a result, I have not considered them when evaluating his likelihood of success. ... Ability of Respondent to Enforce Costs Award [10]   The ability of the Respondent to enforce a future costs award is an important factor to be considered (Mathias v. ...

In my view, it should not be considered again in awarding pre-offer costs. ... Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada   [1] 2018 TCC 187. [2] 2020 FCA 82. [3] As the parties have agreed to these points, I have not considered them. [4] Schedule II, Tariff B of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure). [5] 2015 TCC 171, at para. 9 (footnotes omitted). [6] Practice Note No. 17- Proposed Rules and Amendments with Respect to Settlement Offers, Lead Cases and Litigation Process Conferences (January 13, 2010) and Notice to the Public and to the Profession (January 13, 2010), at para. 5. [7] $450,068 in substantial indemnity costs plus $3,000 in tariff costs. [8] Sun Life, at para. 10. [9] 2018 TCC 214, at paras. 9 and 10. [10] $450,068.56 in substantial indemnity costs + $80,781.67 in disbursements + $69,036.52 in non-recoverable HST relating to the substantial indemnity costs + $239,564.93 in pre-offer costs + $31,143.44 in non-recoverable HST relating to the pre-offer costs. ...

They considered such things as the type of farm they wanted, the financing required, their experience or lack of it, made use of government agricultural information and resources, sought advice from other farmers who had successful farm operations and even made use of the labour force and machinery and equipment of other persons when they did not have it themselves. ... What constitutes a reasonable expectation of profit was considered in Moldowan, supra, and as pointed out therein the list is not exhaustive, it is an objective determination to be made from all the facts. ...

The mere fact that a list is given of various types of communities or areas in clause 4601(c)(i)(C) indicates that it must be considered whether the transportation activities occurred on highways outside of the community in question, that is here on the highways outside of a village, municipality or other similar community. ... Whether such regulations apply or do not apply to milk transport is also not important in the context of the provision being considered, and when one is only trying to make an analogy with what may constitute “local” transport. ...

Moldowan suggests that there may be a number of factors to be considered but we are here concerned only with three: time spent, capital committed and profitability. ... " From this it is clear that no single factor is necessarily determinative of the issue but each must be considered and given the weight it deserves in the particular circumstances before the Court. ...

The appellant contends that the issue should be considered from the end of the year in question or from the end of the 60 days following the end of the year. Judge Bonner of this Court considered the text of this subparagraph in Gadsby v. ...