Search - considered

The CRA considered the remaining payments to be arrears payments and applied those payments to the Company’s outstanding liability beginning with the first reporting period of the Company in respect of which it owed an amount ... The Appellant considered the GST charged on the Company’s sales to be part of the Company’s revenue. ...

This must be considered.   [18]          In re-direct, he said that his projections were based on the economy at the time they were made ...   [19]          They considered paying down the debt and making a profit but they did not get around to doing it ...

The question is whether, having considered all of the evidence, I can reasonably conclude that Transport would have entered into a similar contract with a non-related worker ... While simply performing a task without pay on behalf of her employer is hardly enough to show that parties at arm’s length would not have agreed to a substantially similar contract, it is a significant factor that most be considered in the larger employment context ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer’s training, the taxpayer’s intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... It is clear that an activity may be considered a commercial activity well in advance of the stage of profitability. ...

In deciding as the Minister did, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact: (a)               the Appellant operated The Fast Cash Company; (b)              the Appellant operated a cheque cashing and short-term loan business; (c)               the Appellant operated out of various locations in Manitoba: (d)              the sole shareholder of the Appellant was Len Thompson (hereinafter "the Shareholder"); (e)               the Worker was the common-law spouse of the Shareholder; (f)                the Worker was hired as an administrative assistant; (g)               the Worker's duties included assisting in office setup, interior design, travel, hiring staff, training staff, assisting in producing a policy manual, ordering inventory, customer relations, typing, filing, paper work, answering phones and computer work; (h)               the Worker performed her services at the Appellant's various premises; (i)                 the Worker had been working for the Appellant since the year 2000; (j)                 the Worker earned a set salary of $750.00 per week; (k)               the Appellant paid the Worker by cheque, on a bi-weekly basis; (l)                 the Appellant determined the Worker's wage rate; (m)            the Worker's wage rate was reasonable; (n)               the Appellant originally withheld premiums and contributions from the Worker's wages; (o)              the Appellant issued T4s to the Worker for the 2001 and 2002 years; (p)              the Worker did not provide unpaid services to the Appellant; (q)              the Worker took vacation leave; (r)                the Worker received the following earnings from the Appellant: 2001 $20,769 2002 $14,095 2003 $37,950 2004 $42,610 (s)               the Worker worked full-time for the Appellant; (t)                 the Worker normally worked during the Appellant's business hours, Monday to Friday; (u)               the Appellant determined the Worker's hours and days of work; (v)               the Worker worked along side the Shareholder; (w)             the Worker's hours and days of work were reasonable; (x)               the Shareholder made the major decisions for the Appellant; (y)               the Worker was under the direction and control of the Appellant; (z)               the Appellant instructed the Worker; (aa)      the Appellant assigned work to the Worker; (bb)             the Appellant supervised the Worker; (cc)              the Worker reported directly to the Shareholder; (dd)             the Worker could not hire her own helpers of (sic) replace herself; (ee)                the Worker informed the Appellant of any leave requirements; (ff)      the Appellant provided all of the tools and equipment required including the work locations and a furnished office; (gg)               the Worker did not pay for the use of the Appellant's equipment; (hh)                the Worker did not incur any operational expenses in the performance of her duties; (ii)          the Appellant reimbursed the Worker for any expenses incurred; (jj)          the Worker did not have a chance of profit or risk of loss; (kk)               the Worker did not sign loans for the Appellant's business; (ll)         the Worker did not have money invested in the Appellant's business; (mm)     the Worker stated that she was not treated differently then (sic) the arm's length employees as an arm's length employee would perform the same services and be paid the same wage; (nn)              the Appellant stated that the Worker was treated differently as an arm's length employee would not have been hired to perform these duties and the Worker's wage was high; (oo)              the Minister considered all of the relevant facts that were made available to the Minister, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, and (pp)              the Minister was satisfied that it was reasonable to conclude that the worker and the Appellant would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length. ... Wiebe wrote to Len Thompson and outlined what she considered her role in 3928366 to be (Exhibit A-7), with a number of policy and physical layout recommendations. ...

While displayers once engaged could select someone else to complete the employment, the area manager was usually involved in the change and the replacement would have to be a person who was considered suitable. [12] During the period in question, the Appellant engaged the Worker to display such products in several retail settings. [13] The area manager in question negotiated an hourly rate, the Worker performed basically the services hereinabove described, submitted her invoices and was paid by cheque. ... The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors, which may be of importance, are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk be taken, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task. ...

[8]            The witnesses were unanimous that it was considered desirable for as many producers and buyers as possible to be covered by the Hartford insurance. No action was required on the part of producers or buyers to trigger coverage; all animals were considered to be covered, and the premiums were invoiced to the producers and to the buyers, unless they took positive steps to opt out of the coverage. ...

Wannan operate to discharge the liability of the Appellant. [2]            It should be noted that the Notice of Appeal raised the issue of whether contributions to a Spousal RRSP can be considered as transfers under section 160 of the Act and also raised the issue that the value of the contribution should be reduced by any tax payable by the Appellant to collapse the Spousal RRSP. ... WHEN THE APPELLANT'S LIABILITY ARISES [20]          The Appellant argues her spouse did not know about the Minister's assessment in respect of the 1988 and 1989 taxation years until 1993, and consequently contributions prior to this date should not be considered in calculating the Appellant's joint and several liability. ...

The appellant mistakenly omitted to calculate the time spent by the tenant in his room and in the bathroom, each of which he considered to have been used 100 per cent by the tenant. [8]            The auditor from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency ("CCRA") used another method (Exhibit R-3). ... (c) Integral Part or Separate Asset- Another point that may have to be considered is whether the expenditure is to repair a part of a property or whether it is to acquire a property that is itself a separate asset. ...

In my view, it is only as of April 1, 1996, when the account changed holders and was put in the name of Farm of the Mountain, that it can be said to have belonged to the appellant. [29]          Third, contrary to what counsel for the respondent claim, evidence was in fact adduced that account 1916 was used, regardless of the period being considered (that is to say, in the period from 1994 to March 31, 1996, and subsequently in the period from April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997), to pay both the expenses relating to the farm operation and those that may be characterized as living expenses of the Coulson-Laframboise household. ... Where a joint bank account is used for a number of purposes or to pay a number of types of expenses, the problem is to identify correctly the expenses that may be considered as "expenses of the marriage". ...