Search - considered

  [13]          The appeals officer also considered the layoff unjustified, since in October 2006 there were between 8 and 12 employees still working for the business. ...   [25]          As for the expenditures that the appeals officer considered were made by the Appellant for the employer with her own pay cheques, the Appellant adduced sufficient evidence, in my opinion, to show that that was not the case ...

He did not report that amount in his income as he considered it to be a reasonable allowance given to him by his employer to reimburse him for costs he incurred personally for the benefit of his employer. ... Pizzuti was the lady who erroneously considered the appellant to be a subcontractor. ...

(Transcript p. 249, lines 3-4)   When the evidence is carefully considered, it appears that many of the expenses that were paid by the Appellant in the period simply increased the amounts owed by the Appellant on various credit cards. I am not convinced that CRA officials properly considered this fact.   ...

The pain is considered chronic if it has lasted more than three months; the pain must involve at least three separate regions of the body; and, the patient must have at least eleven out of eighteen tender points. ... Accordingly, I am of the view that the non-inclusion of the benefit claimed by the appellants from the legislation in question does not constitute discrimination by effect. 20     Having reached the conclusion that the benefit sought by the appellants is not a benefit provided by the law and that the legislative choice not to provide such a benefit does not give rise to direct discrimination or discrimination by effect, I am of the view that the appellants' subsection 15(1) argument need not be further considered. ...

Thus, while the Appellants owned a different truck of the same type in each taxation year, for the purposes of this judgment, the various vehicles are considered globally as the “Truck” and the conclusions reached are equally applicable to each vehicle ... In the present matter, paragraphs 44(5)(c) and (d) are not in issue; accordingly, to succeed in this aspect of their appeal, the Appellants must show that the elements of paragraphs (a), (a.1) and (b) have been fulfilled; the evidence in respect of each is considered below ...

However, in one situation a tutor by the name of Pamela Merritt was initially considered by the CRA to be an employee of Sunrise. ...   [35]     I have also considered the following Tax Court decisions:   1.                  ...

The appellant and his wife considered this proposal and decided to accede to it. ...   [17]     Family relationships have been considered in a number of cases in this court dealing with the liability of directors under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act, but in the final analysis, the extent to which a director is justified in relying upon an employee of the company, relative or not, is a question of fact that must be decided in the particular circumstances of each case. ...

  [34]     In addition to this, when the evidence regarding the use of vehicles is considered as a whole, the amount of business use that is claimed, 17,000 kilometers, seems very high ... In addition, a deduction for maintenance and repairs on the truck in the amount of $1,032.30 should be allowed;   (b)        with respect to general business expenses, a total of $1,077 should be allowed as current expenses and $2,810 should be considered as the cost of capital expenditures on equipment;   (c)        with respect to meals and entertainment, a deduction should be allowed in the amount of $471.49;   (d)        with respect to a cell phone, a deduction in the amount of $400 should be allowed; and   (e)         with respect to parking, a deduction in the amount of $11.70 should be allowed ...

(denied)     [5]               In addition, the Minister relied on the following factors, set out in paragraph 6 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, in imposing on Gilles Bélanger the penalty under subsection 163(2) of the Act in respect of the $26,440 added to his 2004 employment income and the $5,335 added to his 2005 employment income:   [TRANSLATION]   (a)        Based on the conclusion that the Minister drew from the facts set out in paragraph 5 above, the Appellant falsely used the address of the building in Baie-Trinité so that he could be considered eligible to receive tax-free allowances ... (admitted)   [7]               In addition, the Minister relied on the following factors, set out in paragraph 6 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, in imposing on François Bélanger the penalty contemplated in subsection 163(2) of the Act in respect of the $24,078 added to his employment income for the 2004 taxation year:              [TRANSLATION]   (a)        Based on the conclusion that the Minister drew from the facts set out in paragraph 5 above, the Appellant falsely used the address of the building in Baie-Trinité so that he could be considered eligible to receive tax-free allowances ...

Plitt cannot reasonably be considered to possess confidential information in these circumstances ... In one prior decision, this was not considered to be a significant factor in determining disqualification. ...