Search - considered

At the time of the wind-up MFM was the sole shareholder of Rock Road and the non-capital loss of Rock Road was considered to be a non-capital loss of MFM. ... The respondent further takes the position that Rock Road always intended that the series of transactions in issue may reasonably be considered to have artificially or unduly created a loss from the disposition of the 14.56 Roberge shares. ... There was no evidence that the acquisition of the Roberge shares by Grundy was considered by the shareholders of Shantz or by any other of the Shantz group of companies. ...

He also noted that the appellant's activities could have been considered to be processing if the changes made to the materials had been made to comply with customers' wishes. ... M.N.R., supra, and one of the steps in their preparation consisted of packaging the vegetables, then the packaging activity would be considered "processing" even though it did not change. ... Activities carried on by a scrap metal dealer, such as sorting, removing contaminants, grading, cutting to size and baling, in order to make raw scrap saleable are considered qualified activities. ...

Prévost who, according to the rumours circulating at the time, did not want to be considered as Mr. ... Furthermore, I am of the view that, although the conclusion was reached that the appellant’s advances to Prodimpex did not constitute running expenses, one could not reproach it to the appellant under subsection 152(4) which relates to negligence, etc., just as one could not do so for a taxpayer who would have considered the business profit resulting from the disposition of a property as a capital gain. ... This transaction may therefore be considered as part of the normal operations of FPI, which carried on a real estate brokerage and real estate purchase and resale business. ...

Proulx-Drouin states that she agreed to guarantee Société's line of credit because:   a)     she believed she held a 12.5 per cent interest in the Trans Canada building;   b)    she considered the building's difficulty only temporary and that the Trans Canada building was potentially profitable;   c)    Société had financed the renovation of another building ("Bélanger building") in which she held a 8.33 per cent interest; and   d)    her husband promised to transfer to her one‑third of the shares he owned in a corporation, Lapidia Inc. ... Because she believed Société was still providing services in 1996, she considered the debt good, notwithstanding the bank's actions ... The BNC apparently considered the debt bad in 1995; there was no evidence that Société's financial situation was any better when Mrs.  ...

" and does not seem to have paid interest on this loan; (q)         The alleged loan arrangements were offered only in return for the purchase of shares in 9066-1000 Québec Inc. using the Appellant's RRSP; (r)         As a result of the strategy mentioned above, the Appellant was able to withdraw her RRSP without paying taxes; (s)         According to the Appellant, she did not notify "Laurentian Trust" that she had provided her RRSP as a loan guarantee and this explains why the Trust did not issue a T4RSP to her for the 1998 taxation year; (t)          The fair market value (FMV) of the Appellant's RRSP was $20,775 when she provided her RRSP as a guarantee for the $16,620 loan; (u)         the Minister therefore added the full amount of $20,775 to Appellant's total income for the 1998 taxation year; (v)         the Minister also considered applying the general anti-avoidance rule as an alternative position. [3]      The question at issue is fully articulated at paragraph 4 of the Amended Reply to the Notice of Appeal: [TRANSLATION] The question at issue involves determining whether the Minister is justified in adding the amount of $20,775 to the Appellant's income for the 1998 taxation year. [4]      The Appellant wanted to become financially independent. ... Judge Bowman (as he then was) considered the jurisdiction of this Court with respect to crediting an Appellant for source deductions withheld but not remitted by the employer and he stated at paragraph 14: Even if I had concluded differently it would not have been within the power of this court to declare that in determining the balance owing to the Government of Canada by Mr. ... Tremblay has set up businesses that shared accounting data, which were either totally fictitious or grossly exaggerated. [67]     In fact, over and above the various appearances and qualifications of certain transactions, RRSP owners such as the Appellant obtained funds from their RRSPs in exchange for an obscene commission. [68]     Although the Appellant is sympathetic and although she may possibly have been the innocent victim of an actual professional swindle, the appeal must be dismissed because the assessment is correct. [69]     To arrive at this conclusion, the Respondent conducted a very meticulous analysis of the facts and considered all the relevant legislative provisions. ...

They always considered the property in their respective trusts as their own and dealt with it as their own. ... She referred to the three requirements stated in Revenue Canada’s Technical News, supra, for a trust to be considered a bare trust. ... The question now remains whether those losses should be reported by the husband’s trust and the wife’s trust or whether these trusts should be considered bare trusts in respect of the Partnership interest, thus allowing the losses to flow through to the appellant and his wife personally. ...

She had considered buying it from her family but was financially unable to do so. ... These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective “reasonably prudent person” standard.   ... The Appellant also considered having cheques being paid to CRL from its customers endorsed directly over to CRA, but because the bank was monitoring the company receivables so closely, the Appellant felt the bank would simply stop this practice if it were to be initiated. …   49.       ...

Counsel for the Respondent advises me that, to date, this issue has only been considered in informal procedure cases. ... Galachiuk under subsection 163(1) therefore exceeds even the maximum fine imposed for a criminal conviction for tax evasion under subsection 239(2) which is only 200% of the taxes evaded. [2]           In Chiasson Justice D’Auray stated her view that the due diligence defence could only be applied to the year in which the penalties had been assessed but, in light of the differing views on this issue among Judges on the Court and the fact that the Federal Court of Appeal had not yet had the occasion to rule on this issue, Justice D’Auray chose to give the taxpayer the benefit of the doubt and considered the taxpayer’s due diligence in the earlier year as well. [3]           There are a number of cases where the Court considered the taxpayer’s due diligence in more than one year but did not explicitly state that it was required to do so: Jack v. ...

The offer was made   “… in the hope of avoiding controversy or potential litigation on behalf of minority shareholders …”, but not “… by reason of any enforceable claims … by shareholders …”. [4]   In concluding that the payment of $ $2,144 made to the holder of 640 shares was a windfall, the Court considered seven factors put forward by counsel for the Crown, and said of them that they were all relevant “… although no one of them by itself may be conclusive …”. ... These two criteria, if positive, might be considered indicia of payments in the nature of income; in the negative they are a neutral factor. ... I can see no relevance to this document, and I have not considered it in reaching my conclusion that the payments are subject to tax. ...

During the hearing, I considered the grant payment in the amount of $880,660 a capital payment for construction purposes that was not in the nature of a consideration for a lease. The evidence presented to me referred to partnership agreements to lease the premises at no cost, in consideration of payment of the excess costs. [49]     If, in terms of agreements signed between the Commission scolaire des Belles-Rivières and the city of Québec, there had been only the one entitled "Agreement", I could have considered the above-mentioned payment as merely financial assistance for the construction of premises and not as a consideration for the supply of real property, and I could have considered that it was indeed one of the usual agreements. [50]     However, in that agreement, in clause 4 entitled "Lease" the parties agreed to sign a lease contract. ...