Search - considered

Edgar Penner considered that the cost of construction per suite was considerably less than what it cost his company to construct a comparable building. ... The appellant’s declared intention of purchasing the properties as an investment in rental properties must, of course, be considered by the Board. ...

Bill Jani was considered an expert in the oil tool business and Ross was the actual marketing agent. ... In this case Décary, J of the Federal Court — Trial Division, considered Article VIII of the Canada-US Tax Convention and stated at 538 and 6375 respectively: I cannot concur with the view expressed by learned counsel for Plaintiff to the effect that the deemed to be disposition is a sale or exchange. ...

The parties agreed that the appeal be considered on the record and transcript of the evidence and argument by another member. ... The net profits from the above transactions were considered by the respondent to be income from a business or venture in the nature of trade and therefore taxable as income from a business. ...

Paragraph 13 of the bulletin reads in part: Where payments for damages that have been awarded by a Court or resolved in an out-of- court settlement, in respect of personal injuries or death, are paid on a periodic basis, the payments will not be considered to be annuity payments for the purposes of paragraph 56(l)(d) and 60(a). ... However, where an award for damages has been used by the taxpayer or his representative to purchase an annuity, the amounts received will be considered as annuity payments under paragraphs 56(1)(d) and 60(a) and Regulation 300. ...

By notice of reassessment which was mailed on March 3, 1980, pursuant to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148, (“the Act”), the respondent took the position that: “Profit on sale of Lakeshore Apartments considered to be an adventure in the nature of trade”. ... In giving its reasons the Board considered the question of deductions for depreciation. ...

However, there is insufficient evidence as to the amounts allegedly won by the appellant at the races and in gambling, when considered in the light of the considerable amount of cash allegedly on hand at the beginning of each fiscal year under review. ... However, he did not indicate to the Court where the Minister had erred nor did he indicate to the Court what he considered to be the correct figures. ...

Because the structure was considered to be in average condition for its type and use and, having regard to his experience, he applied a depreciation factor of 30 per cent which resulted in his opinion of V-Day value as being $12,600 in a rounded figure. ... As prices for cottage lots would be higher if sold during the summer months some adjusting factor should be considered in this respect. ...

In 1975, at age sixty- two, the appellant considered that the management of his business had become too much for him and put it up for sale. ... The issue is one of fact which must be considered objectively. The financial statements, forecasts, comparison tables and tax returns submitted by counsel are important factors in determining whether the appellant’s farming activities have a reasonable expectation of producing a profit. ...

However, at the beginning of the hearing the counsel for both parties informed the Court that they had reached a partial admission and settlement on the following points: 3.01 The appeal is allowed in part for each of the following years, referring to the T7W-C form attached to the reassessments: 1975 The penalty must be levied only on $1,217.65, and not on $1,649.41. 1976 (a) the penalty must be levied only on $1,410.26, and not on $3,022.55; (b) the granting of option of $10,000 must be considered as down payment; and (c) the standby charges of $1,612.29 which were omitted were reduced to $850.89. 1977 The penalty must be levied only on $1,136.90, and not on $2,282.90. From 1975 to 1977 the reassessments are maintained except on the points above. 1978 (a) the penalty must be levied only on $901.90, and not on $7,518.64; (b) the following point is in dispute: should the profits made from the sale of the Harrison farm be considered as a capital gain or not? ...

Counsel for the respondent argued that: (1) It was not clear whether any other methods of providing financial security for Mr Jabs’ family were considered. (2) Mr Jabs testified that tax consequences were not considered by him although Mr Milan, his accountant, made it clear that the tax implications of whatever steps Mr Jabs took would naturally have been discussed. (3) While Mr Jabs is not a director or officer of Development or Roblyn there is still a marked involvement of him and his staff of Construction in the management and affairs of these two companies. (4) Development was a joint venture development company with which all three companies were connected. (5) Mr Milan had admitted that Eric Jabs had a big part in the decisionmaking process of Development and Roblyn although he was not always consulted. (6) Although Mr Jabs had stated that the intention was to keep Development debt-free this was not what actually happened. (7) Mr Jabs was the directing mind between the three companies. (8) A lease agreement was signed by Mr Pratt on behalf of Construction while the registered owner of the property was Development. (9) From the documents evidence showed that Mr Pratt approached Mr Jabs for his decision on each of the companies which was to be involved in each project. (10) Eric Jabs signed for Development when it applied for a loan to the Royal Bank of Canada. ...