Search - considered

b)         alternatively, is the Appellant, pursuant to paragraphs 246(b) of the Income Tax Act, deemed to have made payments to a non-resident person to which Part XIII applies;   c)         alternatively, is the Appellant, pursuant to paragraphs 212(1)(a) or 212(1)(d) required to remit withholding tax on amounts considered to be, or in lieu of, management or administration fees or charges and/or royalties ...

Although there had at one point been discussion as to whether the corporation should transfer the residence to him, no such transfer had ever taken place. [11]     Not only did the evidence submitted by the Appellant and his accountant lack rigor, it was not very credible, in respect of the facts considered for the years at issue. [12]     After acknowledging that his client had received a benefit, the accountant calculated the value of this benefit in a rather amateurish way. [13]     According to the accountant, the value established orally in the early 80s was the same during the taxation years and he did not see why it should have been revised upwards, although he was not unaware that all the costs involved, such as heating, taxes, etc., had of course increased considerably over the years. [14]     For his part, the Respondent put Ms. ...

Before: The Honourable Judge Alain Tardif Appearances: For the appellant: The appellant himself Counsel for the respondent: M e Martin Gentile____________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT           The appeal under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is allowed in that the work performed during the periods from July 9 to November 30, 2001, and from June 10 to June 29, 2002, is considered insurable, and the decision of the Minister of National Revenue is vacated, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment. ...

Justice Cattanach of the Federal Court- Trial Division considered the consequences of a trust. ...

Counsel for the Respondent submits that the agreement in issue is merely an acknowledgement that the amount was paid to her and, in any event, if it could be considered to be an agreement, it is of no help to the Appellant for the 2000 taxation year because of the operation of subsection 60.1(3). ...

That provision could only assist the Appellant if the withdrawal could be considered to be "pension income". ...

A new order concerning the same subject or matter as a previous order is considered as having replaced the previous order and subsequently becomes the legal basis of the obligation. [13]     Counsel for the Respondent also referred to this Court's decision in Pierre Gagnon v. ...

., cannot be considered a benefit because it adds nothing of value to the recipient's economic situation.... ...

By means of a Notice of Reassessment dated December 29, 2004, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") disallowed $2,950 of the moving expenses as follows: Room & Board in Calgary                                 $1,000 Costs to maintain Lethbridge residence $1,950 Disallowed moving expenses                              $2,950 The Minister considered that the disallowed moving expenses were personal expenditures of the Appellant and not eligible moving expenses. 8.          ...

Counsel for the Respondent has, by the written submissions dated October 7, 2004, agreed, with the consent of the Appellant and her husband that although the Appellant, Sushma Marwaha was living in the same residence with her husband, Yash Marwaha, they were nevertheless to be considered as living separate and apart and pursuant to a written agreement, with the result that the said amount of $8,400.00 in each of said three years is to be included in the income of Yash Marwaha and deducted from the income of the Appellant Sushma Marwaha as contemplated in sections 56 and 60 of the Income Tax Act ("Act"). ...