Search - considered

In this context, I note that $.34½ per kilometre is considered to be a reasonable expense incurred by such person when required to use his vehicle for government business. [9] I do not dispute that this takes into account the use of the vehicle in its full context, that is not just operating expenses, but the cost of insurance, the cost of maintenance, the cost of repairs and so forth, but these are an appropriate charge. [10] I note, for example, that in northern communities, it is accepted (and I am speaking on the basis of previous cases I have heard) that the rates are increased because of the additional wear and tear which occurs given their particular weather conditions and so forth. ...

In conclusion, his disability could deteriorate with time and affect his degree of functional limitations. [9]      Subsections 118.3(1) and 118.4(1) of the Income Tax Act ("the Act ") and Regulations for 1996, which apply to a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment, read as follows: 118.3 (1) Where (a)     an individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment, (a.1) the effects of the impairment are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (a.2) a medical doctor, or where the impairment is an impairment of sight, a medical doctor or an optometrist, has certified in prescribed form that the individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment the effects of which are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (b)    the individual has filed for a taxation year with the Minister the certificate described in paragraph (a.2), and (c)    no amount in respect of remuneration for an attendant or care in a nursing home, in respect of the individual, is included in calculating a deduction under section 118.2 (otherwise than because of paragraph 118.2(2)(b.1)) for the year by the individual or by any other person, for the purposes of computing the tax payable under this Part by the individual for the year, there may be deducted an amount determined by the formula                                     A x $4,118 where A      is the appropriate percentage for the year. 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 can 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. [10]     Paragraph 118.4(1)(b) uses the term "markedly". ...

Those words are found in section 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations (" Regulations ") which reads: 9.1 Where a person's earnings are paid on an hourly basis, the person is considered to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person actually worked and for which the person was remunerated. [5] The authority to enact the Regulation is found in subsections 6(3) and 55(1) of the Act. ...

It may be that some of the products used in soup could be considered as for the purpose of maintaining life, but that is not why they were sold by the Appellant or bought by its customers. ...

Fournier are taxable under the general provisions of subsection 3(a) of the Act would disregard the fact that Parliament has chosen to deal with the taxability of such amounts, in the provisions of the Act relating to retiring allowances. [3] [16] The amount of $42,500.05 does not fall within the ambit of the "ordinary concept of income" and is what is normally considered a "recurring receipt". ...

Dussault, J.T.C.C. [1] This is an appeal from an assessment for the appellant's 1996 taxation year whereby the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") included in the appellant's income an amount of $54,590.00 as income from a registered retirement savings plan ("RRSP"). [2] For the purposes of this assessment, the Minister assumed the facts stated in subparagraphs 4(a) to (f) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, which read as follows: [TRANSLATION] (a) on August 23, 1996, the appellant borrowed $98,000 from the Caisse Populaire Desjardins Domaine Saint-Sulpice (hereinafter the "Caisse"); (b) the appellant gave the Caisse savings of $85,380.25 as security for the loan; (c) the security given was a personal property mortgage on amounts accumulated in an RRSP and consisted of a certificate of deposit of $85,380.25 bearing number 0016793; (d) at one point in the taxation year in issue, the trust governed by the RRSP permitted trust property to be used as security; (e) as a result, the Minister considered that the fair market value—that is to say, $85,380.25—that the property used as security had at the time it commenced to be so used had to be included in computing the appellant's income for the year; (f) as the appellant had reported an amount of $30,769.23, the Minister added to the appellant's income for the taxation year in issue an amount of $54,590 as income from an RRSP. [3] The appellant does not dispute the facts stated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) but contends that the Minister incorrectly included the additional amount of $54,590 in his income since a new loan was taken out on December 4, 1996 in order to repay that of August 23, 1996 and that new loan was granted without security. [4] Until August 1996, the appellant had a $50,000 line of credit at the Caisse Populaire Desjardins Domaine St-Sulpice (the "Caisse"). ...

Notwithstanding subsections (4), (4.1) and (5), where the result of an assessment or a decision on an appeal is to change a particular balance of a taxpayer for a particular taxation year, the Minister may, or where the taxpayer so requests in writing, shall, before the later of the expiration of the normal reassessment period in respect of a subsequent taxation year and the end of the day that is one year after the day on which all rights of objection and appeal expire or are determined in respect of the particular year, reassess the tax, interest or penalties payable, or redetermine an amount deemed to have been paid or to have been an overpayment, under this Part by the taxpayer in respect of the subsequent taxation year, but only to the extent that the reassessment or redetermination can reasonably be considered to relate to the change in the particular balance of the taxpayer for the particular year. ...

I also see nothing that necessarily leads to the conclusion that it is only the first 15 days that are considered. ...

In view of the absence of any supporting evidence or of even the most basic accounting, the total amount of the sums received periodically clearly cannot be considered as reimbursements or advances. ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer's training, the taxpayer's intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ...