Search - considered

These positions are not totally consistent with the position taken by the Appellant at this hearing. [12]         The conditions that must be satisfied in order for a supply to be considered zero-rated were summarized by David Sherman as follows: 1)     It has to be a “freight transportation service”, which means a service of transporting tangible personal property as defined by subsection 1(1) of Part VII of Schedule VI; 2)     The supply has to be made by a “carrier”, which is a person who supplies a freight transportation service as defined by subsection 123(1) of the Excise Tax Act; 3)     The supply has to be made to a second “carrier”. ...

“eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is a parent of the qualified dependant who (i) is the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant and who is not a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant, or (ii) is a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse or common-law partner of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse or common-law partner is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (ii) is a temporary resident within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii) is a protected person within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (iv) was determined before that time to be a member of a class defined in the Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations made under the Immigration Act, and for the purposes of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing ...

This was also considered by Justice Paris in paragraph 35 of his decision in Sackaney ...

  [13]         In determining whether there is an annuity payment under an RRSP referred to in subparagraph (a)(ii) of the definition of pension income, reproduced above, what is to be considered is the situation after the money is withdrawn from the RRSP, not before, nor should there be any consideration of the type of investments that are made with the money that is in the RRSP. ...

Haynes submits that the notice of appeal should be considered to be filed on a timely basis because:   a)      section 11(b) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules provides that the December holiday period is to be excluded from the calculation of time; and   b)     the Court has jurisdiction under section 12(1) of the Rules to allow the notice of appeal to stand ...

With respect to child support, the Consent Order reads:   “ Currently, based on the parties’ respective incomes, the parties agree that the amount of child support payable by the Applicant to the Respondent is $410.25 per month, calculated as follows:   2008 income of the Applicant: $56,297.00 ($783.00 per month child support obligation)   2008 income of the Respondent: $24,523.00 ($363.00 per month child support obligation)   Respondent’s portion of Children’s medical insurance: $9.75 per month $783.00- $363.00- $9.75 = $410.25” In the Consent Order, the Appellant was the Applicant and his former spouse was the Respondent. [12]         The issue raised in this appeal was recently considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in Marc Verones v The Queen, 2013 FCA 69. ...

  [7]              Subsection 1100(2) reads as follows:   Property Acquired in the Year   (2)        The amount that a taxpayer may deduct for a taxation year under subsection (1) in respect of property of a class in Schedule II is to be determined as if the undepreciated capital cost to the taxpayer at the end of the taxation year (before making any deduction under subsection (1) for the taxation year) of property of the class were reduced by an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount, if any, by which     (a) the total of all amounts, each of which is an amount added      (i) because of element A in the definition “undepreciated capital cost” in subsection 13(21) of the Act in respect of property that was acquired in the year or that became available for use by the taxpayer in the year, or      (ii) because of element C or D in the definition “undepreciated capital cost” in subsection 13(21) of the Act in respect of an amount that was repaid in the year,   to the undepreciated capital cost to the taxpayer of property of a class in Schedule II, other than               (iii) property included in paragraph 1(v), in paragraph (w) of Class 10 or in any of paragraphs (a) to (c), (e) to (i), (k), (l) and (p) to (s) of Class 12,    (iv) property included in any of Classes 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 27, 29, 34 and 52,    (v) where the taxpayer was a corporation described in subsection (16) throughout the year, property that was specified leasing property of the taxpayer at that time,    (vi) property that was deemed to have been acquired by the taxpayer in preceding taxation year by reason of the application of paragraph 16.1(1)(b) of the Act in respect of a lease to which the property was subject immediately before the time at which the taxpayer last acquired the property, and    (vii) property considered to have become available for use by the taxpayer in the year by reason of paragraph 13(27)(b) or 28(c) of the Act   exceeds     (b) the total of all amounts, each of which is an amount deducted from the undepreciated capital cost to the taxpayer of property of the class               (i) because of element F or G in the definition “undepreciated capital cost” in subsection 13(21) of the Act in respect of property disposed of in the year, or               (ii) because of element J in the definition “undepreciated capital cost” in subsection 13(21) of the Act in respect of an amount the taxpayer received or was entitled to receive in the year.   ...

It is my view that such a matter of process may be better left to the discretion of the judge who will be responsible for the trial. [5]   Secondly, and in any event, even if I am wrong with respect to the section 17.1 requirement that a corporation be represented by counsel in a general procedure appeal, Rule 30(2) would leave the matter in my discretion, including as to the conditions that may apply with respect to any particular representative in any particular case. [6]   There is case law of this Court that helpfully identifies some of the matters to be considered in exercising my discretion in this regard. ...

Conduct Affecting the Duration of the Proceeding [13]   If a witness who is within the control of a party fails to testify in an honest and straight forward manner, the resulting delay in the proceedings is a factor that should be considered when awarding costs. ...

It did hear his submissions and has further considered. He remains misguided in his view. ...