Search - considered

Results 2851 - 2860 of 7910 for considered
TCC

Mario D’angelo v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] CTC 2685, 83 DTC 627

Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept that the prospect of using the property as the home of the appellant’s family was seriously considered at the date of acquisition. ... The purchase and sale of the one parcel of property — the corner parcel disposed of in the second sale and assessed to tax in the year 1980 in the amount of $7,635 — will be considered as resulting from the acquisition of land for the purpose of constructing a principal residence, and will be on capital account. ...
TCC

Saul Simkin v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] CTC 2721, 83 DTC 651

The Court thinks that 60 per cent of the amount can reasonably be considered for this. The other 40 per cent must be considered as a payment for use or as an advantage to the appellant, and therefore taxable in his income. 5. ...
TCC

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. R., [1997] 1 CTC 2194, 97 DTC 187

It provides, in essence, that a taxpayer shall include in income any amount received from a government where the amount can reasonably be considered to have been received (iv) as a reimbursement, contribution or allowance or as assistance, whether as a grant, subsidy, forgivable loan, deduction from tax, allowance or any other form of assistance, in respect of the cost of property or in respect of an outlay or expense... ... A taxpayer is required to include in income an amount received from the government where the amount can reasonably be considered to have been received. ...
TCC

Maisie Winnetta Bowles v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1997] 1 CTC 2045 (Informal Procedure)

In order to understand the meaning of a severe and prolonged impairment, we must refer to subsection 118.4(1): (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 may 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. ... (e) Finally there must be considered — and this is the most difficult principle to formulate- the criteria to be employed in forming the judgement whether the mental impairment is of such severity that the person is entitled to the credit, i.e. that that person’s ability to perceive, think and remember is markedly restricted within the meaning of the Act. ...
TCC

Ferme Jules Côté & Fils Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen and Jules Côté v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1996] 3 CTC 2361 (Informal Procedure)

., I understand from the evidence and pleadings that the appellant admitted making these sales to Les Entreprises René Leclerc Inc. but considered that it should be allowed to deduct the amount since it said it used the proceeds of this sale of animals to buy other animals. ... The concept of gross negligence has also been considered by the courts many times. ...
TCC

Claude Lamothe v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1996] 3 CTC 2423 (Informal Procedure)

Subsection 118.4(1) reads as follows: (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 may 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. ... The reports. of the two psychiatrists must be considered. Dr. Hillel described his condition as follows: This is to certify that the subject has been under my care since March 4, 1982 for a bipolar affective disorder. ...
TCC

Rogers v. R., [1997] 2 CTC 2135

Counsel for the Appellant considered paragraph 125(7)(c) and noted that it contained the expression “income from property”. ... Judge Bowman considered the meaning of “principal purpose” in Prosperous Investments Ltd. v. ...
TCC

Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co. v. R., [1997] 2 CTC 2419, 96 DTC 1246

This case also considered the broad language of section 6(1)(b). Sheppard D.J. said, at page 516 (D.T.C. 6336):... ... Subsection 20(14) Although subsection 20(14) was not referred to at the hearing of this appeal I have considered its potential application to the Appellant. ...
TCC

Foley v. R., [1997] 2 CTC 3109

It is true that he performed more of the duties and an additional amount to be considered for the granting of security for bonding but that all these services were for the benefit of the company and as before and were not for the taxpayer. The money he received was in recompense for complying of these duties, additional as they were and would be considered to be either a bonus or increase in salary from the company. ...
TCC

Séguin v. R., [1998] 1 CTC 2453

The question should be considered whether the definition in subsection 62(3) of the Act is exhaustive. ... If there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the words “reasonably be considered” can include a method other than that recognized by Revenue, this doubt should be resolved in favour of the taxpayer. ...

Pages