Search - considered

The Queen, 2013 FCA 102, the Federal Court of Appeal considered that the construction of the taxpayer's house was substantially completed in December 2006, because at that time, the taxpayer had incurred 97.3% of the total expenses related to the construction of the house, even though the taxpayer had stored a certain amount of the materials in his garage. ...

In Yang v R, 2009 TCC 636, Angers J. listed some of the factors which have been considered by this court in determining what constitutes a primary place of residence. ...

Even if it is considered to be an error, the error in this case is not misleading and it is not material. ...

The only connection, if any, I could see between the repayment and the royalty, is that the repayment can be considered to have been made to preserve or protect a capital asset or a source of income of the appellant. ...

  [4]              The relevant sections of the Act provide 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.   ...

For this reason alone the cases conclude on their facts that the PA otherwise determined can not be said to be a benefit accrual which could reasonably be considered to be attributable to the taxpayer’s employment in respect of the year since that taxpayer was no longer employed and no contributions existed in the pension plan on their behalf. ...

  [8]              The appellant considered that the Minister should have allowed a deduction of $4,000 per year for medical expenses and that the Minister should have accepted a settlement by virtue of which the amount of tax payable in respect of the 2007 taxation year should have been reduced by one-half and no interest should have been charged.   ...

  [12]         The arguments put forward by the appellant in this appeal have been specifically considered by this Court in Cunningham v. ...

The Queen, [3] at paragraph 7:   [7] The issue of estoppel has been considered in a number of cases and the principle which generally can be taken therefrom is that no representation involving an interpretation of law by a servant or officer of the Crown can bind it. ...

An installation may be an "alteration" that is not simply a "renovation". [16] The term "renovate" was considered judicially in Edinburgh Parish Council v. ...