Search - considered

In my view, the decision of March 5, 2009, (Exhibit I‑4) cannot be considered as a review of the CRA's decision of October 14, 2008, since it does not discuss the letter at all.   It is incumbent upon the appellant to verify whether the letter he sent to the CRA in January 2009 can be considered as a request to review the letter of October 14, 2008, and if not, then whether he is still within the prescribed time limit to appeal to the director of a tax centre or tax services office, and if that is not the case, then whether it is possible to apply for an extension of time ...

  [4]               In my Reasons for Judgment, I had considered the result of the proceeding and awarded costs to the Appellant ... In this appeal, the amount at issue, although important to the Appellant, is not considered a large amount of money ...

., [2003] 2 C.T.C. 2163, Associate Chief Justice Bowman, as he then was, discussed some of the factors that should be considered when exercising the discretion under Subsection 30(2) of the Rules. ... [General Procedure]), Tardif J. considered a corporate appellant's inability to pay a lawyer's fees as "a decisive factor" in such a motion as this ...

., so as to                             reduce or postpone tax otherwise payable. (1) Where the members of a partnership have agreed to share, in a specified proportion, any income or loss of the partnership from any source or from sources in a particular place, as the case may be, or any other amount in respect of any activity of the partnership that is relevant to the computation of the income or taxable income of any of the members thereof, and the principal reason for the agreement may reasonably be considered to be the reduction or postponement of the tax that might otherwise have been or become payable under this Act, the share of each member of the partnership in the income or loss, as the case may be, or in that other amount, is the amount that is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances including the proportions in which the members have agreed to share profits and losses of the partnership from other sources or from sources in other places. (1.1)                    Agreement to share income, etc., in unreasonable proportions. Where two or more members of a partnership who are not dealing with each other at arm's length agree to share any income or loss of the partnership of any other amount in respect of any activity of the partnership that is relevant to the computation of the income or taxable income of those members and the share of any such member of that income, loss or other amount is not reasonable in the circumstances having regard to the capital invested in or work performed for the partnership by the members thereof or such other facts as may be relevant, that share shall, notwithstanding any agreement, be deemed to be the amount that is reasonable in the circumstances. [5]      In argument, Appellant's counsel pointed out that the subsection 103(1) does not say "and the principal reason for the agreement in the circumstances may reasonably be considered to be the reduction or postponement of the tax... ...

The Crown suggests that since all premiums paid to the TD Canada Trust plan had been deducted, the withdrawal from that plan cannot be considered to relate to undeducted premiums as required by the section. [8]      Mrs. ... As long as the taxpayer can establish that the withdrawal is intended to minimize adverse tax consequences from an overcontribution to another plan, the withdrawal can reasonably be considered to be in respect of the overcontribution. [12]     The appeal is allowed and the reassessment is referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment on the basis that $7,801.34 is deductible by the appellant in computing income pursuant to subsection 146(8.2) of the Act. ...

The Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) disallowed the $9,722.40 deduction claimed as a fee expense on the ground that this amount is a commission the Appellant earned from Sun Life of Canada (Sun Life) and is therefore considered income within the meaning of subsection 9(1) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) ... For an expense to be considered deductible from business income, it has to be incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of earning business income.  ...

That being the case, she would have considered the task of filing the Reply to have fallen to the Agency and thus forwarded the Order to Mr. ... Given the circumstances he considered that the Department of Justice had the task of filing the Reply and therefore he did not file it himself. 14.        ...

Following the objections, the Minister accepted that 16 of the 32 cheques in the amount of $1,000 made out to the appellant could be considered repayments of loans made to the Société and considered three other cheques NSF; the Minister therefore accepted a deduction in the amount of $19,000. [14]     A further amount of $800 was added to the appellant's income; this amount was not really contested. ...

  [8]      I think it is important to refer to subsection 118.4(1) of the Act, which states the following:   118.4 Nature of impairment   (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 oneself or 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;   (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;   [9]      We note that “working” is not considered a basic activity of daily living and that the fact that it cannot be done cannot be taken into consideration ...

  [5]      On the 14th day of November 2000 the Minister granted the Applicant's request for the 1997 taxation year and advised the Applicant that the Notice of Objection for the 1997 taxation year was considered to have been served on that day ...   [11]     On the 14th day of November 2000 the Minister granted the Applicant's request for the 1998 taxation year and advised the Applicant that the Notice of Objection for the 1998 taxation year was considered to have been served on that day ...