Search - considered

I have previously considered this question in Slobodrian v. Canada, [1998] T.C.J. ... Gebrayel, it may be believed that they considered that the total amounts of those receipts had actually been earned by their volunteer work. ...

Penny did not give a precise estimate but also did indicate that a considerable amount of time was spent in the farming operation. [10]     The Appellants separated in 1998 and in the family division of property Calvin received the farm and Penny received other assets. [11]     The custom work performed in 1997 brought in income of $22,470 which the Appellants considered as farming income and filed on a fifty-fifty basis for that amount as well as the other farming income and expenses. ... Moreover the farming activities were expanding over the years from 1996 to 1999. [19]     For all of these reasons, the appeals are allowed with one set of costs and the matters are referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment on the basis that for the years 1996 and 1997 the Appellants were entitled to their full farming losses as claimed and that for those years the custom work revenues are to be considered as part of and included in the farming revenues. ...

  [17]    The appellant therefore claimed an ABIL since he considered that he held a capital claim against the corporation, a claim which had become a bad debt in 1992 ... He therefore considered that he had a claim against the corporation. The word "claim" not defined in the Act, the appellant referred to the definition in the dictionary, Le Nouveau Petit Robert, Paris, Dictionnaires Le Robert, 2000, which reads as follows: [TRANSLATION] " 3.   ...

The collection of GST was never an issue considered since all of its products were to be sold in the US. ... In this context, it should be noted that the Appellant claimed ITCs totalling $18,655 of which $9,283.84, almost 50%, was disallowed by the Minister. [8] No acceptable explanation for the misrepresentations has been presented to the Court. [13]          The Appellant also contends that its claim for ITCs in the amount $2,186.59 relating to expenditures incurred before its date of registration should not be considered a misrepresentation because the Appellant did not understand how section 171 of the Act worked but did not misrepresent the facts when "while putting in an accurate figure of the GST that he had paid, didn't realize and understand that in law some of that was ineligible". [14]          It cannot be disputed that the language of section 171 of the Act is convoluted and difficult. ...

However, there is a basic principle to be considered with respect to expenses such as these. ... If it does, an adjournment is granted to permit the Appellant to comply with the Rules. [17]          I have considered the issue raised on behalf of the Appellant and find nothing whatsoever of any legal merit therein. ...

The Appellant argues that it is discriminatory to put persons in his circumstances at a disadvantage and that such discrimination should not be allowed by the Court because it goes contra to the very purpose of the section, which is to encourage mobility to help with the move to the new employment. [26]          I understand and have considered these agreements but they cannot prevail. [27]          That accessing equity before a move would allow for the interest expense, is not a compelling reason to allow for the expense when accessing equity after a move has commenced. We considered an example during the hearing. If a loan against the Appellant's equity had been taken sometime before the move, days before cuts the example a bit thin, but say months before or a year before, and the proceeds had been used to go for a trip or to buy bonds, then, in that case, when the new residence was acquired there would be no connections between the old and the new residence. ...

The other is whether sales in the amount of C$163,182 in total for the three years were properly considered by the Minister to be domestic sales subject to GST, or were in fact export sales, and therefore zero-rated commodities on which no tax was exigible. [4]            As to the first issue, the Appellant has put itself at a considerable disadvantage by failing to comply with section 286 of the Act. ... I shall come back to the matter of this form shortly. [12]          In all there are 17 vehicles on which the Appellant did not collect GST because it considered them to be export sales: in 1996 there were two vehicles which the Appellant claims were exported to the United States and two to Germany, having a total consideration of US$29,800, which translates to C$40,528; in 1997, three vehicles to the United States aggregating US$28,500 or C$39,330; in 1998, ten vehicles to the United States for an aggregate consideration of US$56,300 or C$83,324. ...

No. 37: 32         In order for s. 56(2) to apply, four preconditions, each of which is detailed in the language of the s. 56(2) itself, must be present: (1)         the payment must be to a person other than the reassessed taxpayer; (2)         the allocation must be at the direction or with the concurrence of the reassessed taxpayer; (3)         the payment must be for the benefit of the reassessed taxpayer or for the benefit of another person whom the reassessed taxpayer wished to benefit; and (4)         the payment would have been included in the reassessed taxpayer's income if it had been received by him or her. [20]     Counsel for the appellants argued that the portion of the bonuses paid to the children that may be considered unreasonable must be attributed to the managers of the appellants in accordance with subsection 56(2) of the Act. ... The salaries or bonuses could be deducted in computing the appellants' income. [21]     Counsel further contended that the total amount of salaries and benefits that should have been included in the salaries of the appellants' managers could be deducted in computing the appellants' incomes since those expenses, even if attributed to the children, were in fact incurred for the purpose of earning the appellants' income. [22]     As a final argument, he submitted that during the investigation, the auditor had considered that the children might be entitled to a certain remuneration, even a minimal one. ...

No evidence whatsoever was presented to suggest that any steps had been taken or even considered to prevent the default. ... According to Deane Gurney, trustee in bankruptcy, such an amendment is common and is not considered to be a new claim against the bankrupt but is a revision of the existing claim. [9]           These objections relate to the assessment of the directors. [10]          The Act requires the company to file the returns and pay the tax no later than one month after the end of its reporting period. ...

Traditionally, if the worker owns or controls the assets and is responsible for their operation and maintenance, he would likely be considered an independent contractor. ...   [14]          So, in Precision, and Sagaz, “tools of the trade”, and “equipment” respectively were considered tools, as was the premises where music was taught in Hennick. ...