Search - considered

McDowell only if the cessation of HMS’s business was considered to be temporary sometime after December 31, 2006. ...

  [7]               The relevant provisions from the Income Tax Act (the Act) are:   12. (1) Income inclusions-- There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from a business or property such of the following amounts as are applicable:   (m) benefits from trusts-- any amount required by subdivision k or subsection 132.1(1) to be included in computing the taxpayer's income for the year, … 104. (13) Income of beneficiary-- There shall be included in computing the income for a particular taxation year of a beneficiary under a trust such of the following amounts as are applicable: (a) in the case of a trust (other than a trust referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition "trust" in subsection 108(1)), such part of the amount that, but for subsections (6) and (12), would be the trust's income for the trust's taxation year that ended in the particular year as became payable in the trust's year to the beneficiary; … 104. (21) Taxable capital gains-- Such portion of the net taxable capital gains of a trust for a taxation year throughout which it was resident in Canada as (a) may reasonably be considered (having regard to all the circumstances including the terms and conditions of the trust arrangement) to be part of the amount that, by virtue of subsection (13) or (14) or section 105, as the case may be, was included in computing the income for the taxation year of (i) a particular beneficiary under the trust, if the trust is a mutual fund trust, or (ii) a particular beneficiary under the trust who is resident in Canada, if the trust is not a mutual fund trust, and (b) was not designated by the trust in respect of any other beneficiary under the trust, shall, if so designated by the trust in respect of the particular beneficiary in the return of its income for the year under this Part, be deemed, for the purposes of sections 3 and 111, except as they apply for the purpose of section 110.6, and subject to paragraph 132(5.1)(b), to be a taxable capital gain for the year of the particular beneficiary from the disposition by that beneficiary of capital property ...

Marie”. 4 During the hearing of these appeals, I indicated that I considered this case to be indistinguishable in principle from Fish v. ...

Subsection 118.4(1) of the Act reads as follows: 118.4(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 Minister, in his Re-Assessment dated November 10, 1994, disallowed the claim for a terminal loss and considered the Appellant’s loss a capital loss. 14. ...

He considered himself only an investor and only took protective action when almost forced to do so. ...

Further, the Respondent’s position is that the only taxation year before the Court is 2011, and what the Minister did and did not do with respect to the Appellant’s tuition credits claimed for 2012 is irrelevant and is not a factor to be considered by the Court. ...

As the appellant had also changed his accounting firm (and this is probably where the confusion arose), the accountant who had filed the notice of objection considered that he had no instructions to proceed. ...

It also seems that the use of the CPAP device would not be considered therapeutic care. ...

  [14]          The second contract, concerning the guaranteed location, must be considered at the same time because the two contracts form a whole ...