Search - considered

  [20]          Finally, the partners agreed that amounts payable in respect of the retirement allowance should be considered a share of the partnership's income for tax purposes ...   [28]          Income from the profits of a partnership cannot be considered pension income within the meaning of subsection 118(7) of the ITA. ...

The chartered appraisal firm expressed the considered opinion that as of April 28, 2008, the market value appraisal of the building to be built was $532,000. ... In such a context, it should be considered that the purchase and subsequent sale of the land amounted at the very least to an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. ...

Notwithstanding subsection 2(2), the taxable income for a taxation year of an individual who is resident in Canada throughout part of the year and non-resident throughout another part of the year is the amount, if any, by which (a) the amount that would be the individual's income for the year if the individual had no income or losses, for the part of the year throughout which the individual was non-resident, other than (i) income or losses described in paragraphs 115(1)(a) to (c), and (ii) income that would have been included in the individual's taxable income earned in Canada for the year under subparagraph 115(1)(a)(v) if the part of the year throughout which the individual was non-resident were the whole taxation year, exceeds the total of (b) the deductions permitted by subsection 111(1) and, to the extent that they relate to amounts included in computing the amount determined under paragraph (a), the deductions permitted by any of paragraphs 110(1)(d) to (d.2) and (f), and (c) any other deduction permitted for the purpose of computing taxable income to the extent that (i) it can reasonably be considered to be applicable to the part of the year throughout which the individual was resident in Canada, or (ii) if all or substantially all of the individual's income for the part of the year throughout which the individual was non-resident is included in the amount determined under paragraph (a), it can reasonably be considered to be applicable to that part of the year. [27]     Section 114 provides for a determination of the taxable income of a part-time resident in three steps. [28]     First the taxpayer computes the amount described in paragraph (a) which is a modification of the computation of income in Division B. [29]     Division B is titled "Computation of Income" and is comprised of a number of deductions and inclusions to be taken into account in the computation of income in sections 3 to 108 of the Act. ...

Consequently, as a general rule, a dividend payment cannot reasonably be considered a benefit diverted from a taxpayer to a third party within the contemplation of subsection 56(2). ... The application of subsection 56(2) was considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in Outerbridge Estate v. ...

DeGroot, considered the letter of April 2, 1993 from Mr. Pouliot to be a request to reallocate tax credits. ... DeGroot also said that as a result of the appellant’s request on August 13, 1992, at a time when the 1987 taxation year was statute-barred, the Minister considered that the file was still open and honoured the request. ...

On this issue, a majority of the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Court of Appeal ruling that the apportionment arrived at by the parties was a reasonable one. 4.03.4 At 116 (D.T.C. 5141; F.C. 608-10) the Federal Court of Appeal referred to Herb Payne, supra, where Noël, J. set out the following rule: Because of the reciprocal effect on purchaser and vendor of any such finding here I am prepared to accept, as suggested by counsel for the respondent, that the matter should be considered from the viewpoint of the purchaser as well as from the viewpoint of the vendor. ... Here also, in making the necessary determination, the learned Justice considered the evidence as to the bargaining between the parties and the evidence as to the meeting of minds on both sides in the relevant transactions. (4.02(10)) Section 20(6)(g) of the old Act is similar to the current section 68. ...

Invoices for services completed are due immediately upon the receipt of the invoices. 4.0        Relationship between two parties The relationship hereby established between two parties is not, shall not be considered, employee and employer, but rather is that of a two independent companies. ... The sloppy draftsmanship suggests that the document was considered to be a formality and not intended to be a clear and detailed expression of the nature of the relationship. [25]     This conclusion was confirmed by the testimony of Tony Lau, president of Fountain Set. ...

Southwind, an Indian resident on a reserve but working off-reserve cutting timber some 40 weeks per year was not property situated "on a reserve" within the meaning of paragraph 87(1)(b) of the Indian Act: [15]     In reaching this conclusion, he considered the following connecting factors: "... (1) the off-reserve residence of the debtor, Morrell Logging; (2) the appellant's residence on the reserve; (3) the place where the appellant's income was paid, which... was the bank used by Morrell Logging; (4) and the off-reserve locations where the appellant engaged in the "income earning process. ... Canada [8], where he stated at page 406:...the concept of "commercial mainstream" is not a test for determining whether property is situated on a reserve; it is merely an aid to be used in evaluating the various factors being considered. ...

While there appears to be authority for reference to extrinsic material to explain the objective of an amendment to the Income Tax Act, the amendment, not the Technical Note constitutes the expression of Parliament’s will, however well considered. ... He said that the concept of the Appellant obtaining dividend refunds while Inc., the recipient of dividends from the Appellant, would be exempt from Part IV tax was not considered. ...

In the further alternative, Counsel for the Appellant argued that if it was concluded that the purpose of the funding of Meager by the Appellant was “too remote from an income-earning process” then the loans should be considered as being within the exceptional circumstances category postulated by the Supreme Court in Bronfman Trusté [8] Counsel contended that the funds were borrowed by CRB for business or economic reasons and not to preserve other income producing assets as was the case in Bronfman or in an effort to shelter income from tax. Robertson J.A. considered this category in 747/2 Alberta Ltd. [9] and cited the following four reasons for its existence: First, the exceptional category accords with the object and purpose of paragraph 20(I)(c)(i). ...