Search - considered

The determination of the individual's chief source of income is extensively considered with reference to section 31 of the Act, but unlike subsection 31(2), which gives the Minister a discretionary power to make such a determination, section 119 of the Act left the determination of question of fact to be decided by the Court. ... M.N.R., supra, the Federal Court held that in its opinion the net dollar and cents position, when viewed through the five years of insight is not the only or conclusive criteria to be considered in determining the question of fact. ... All the factors as referred to in the above cases must be considered. ...

  [5]     It is the Crown’s further position that when a copy of that initial appeal was received by the Court in December 2004, it was received more than 90 days after the reassessments and could not be considered to validate the institution of the appeal. ... This issue does not appear to have been previously considered by the Court with respect to either late filed objections or appeals. ...   [13]    This case and this last issue are significantly different than the issues of awareness and understanding of an assessment, and of discoverability, considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in the case of H. ...

The definition of hardship in the Plan includes a number of items that would normally be considered hardships, such as paying medical expenses, paying funeral expenses and avoiding eviction or foreclosure. ... The definition of hardship in the Plan also includes two items that would not normally be considered hardships: buying a house and paying for the post-secondary education of the employee or his or her family members. ... M.N.R., [2] Judge Rip, as he then was, considered whether an Individual Retirement Account in the US that had been established using funds withdrawn from a pension was a superannuation or pension fund or plan. [3] He stated that “the words ‘superannuation or pension benefit’ in subparagraph 56(1)(a)(i) contemplate a payment of a fixed or determinable allowance paid at regular intervals to a person usually, but not always, as a result of the termination of employment for the purpose of providing that person with a minimum means of existence”. ...

CRUM-EWING and POLIACIK shall be considered as carrying on independent practices – CRUM-EWING a non-litigation practise and POLIACIK a litigation practise. 2. All fees billed by CRUM-EWING shall be considered CRUM-EWING fees and all fees billed by POLIACIK shall be considered POLIACIK fees. 3. ...

Some of the factors set out in this case to be considered are as follows:- the supervision and control which the Payor exercized over the Worker;- the ownership of the tools;- the chance of making a profit;- the risk of incurring a loss;- the integration of the Worker into the business of the enterprise. [11] The Respondent further submits that the period of employment was exactly 12 weeks which was the minimum period of employment needed to qualify the Appellant for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. ... In spite of the above fact the salary of the Appellant, for no explained reason, was during his employment increased by 33 1/3%. [12] After having considered all of the evidence and the submissions of counsel, the Court has not been satisfied that the Appellant was supervised. ... The Appellant was not integrated into the enterprise of the Payor. [13] The Court hereby declares after having considered all of the evidence that it has not been satisfied by a preponderance of credible evidence that there was during the period in question a contract of insurable employment as required by paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. [14] The appeal is therefore dismissed and the determination of the question in issue affirmed. ...

This was the first time I became aware that my Notice of Objection had purportedly been considered or disallowed. ... In that case the Court considered onus in relation to the requirement in ss. 152(2) of the Income Tax Act that the Minister send notice of an assessment to the taxpayer. ... The Minister considered the objection, confirmed the assessment and properly notified the Appellant pursuant to ss. 301(5). ...

She considered she was the primary caregiver during the period in question. [3]            It should be observed that so long as the shared parenting plan for the Children which was implemented on July 22, 2000 remains in effect, there will be no further disagreement as the parties have agreed on how to divide the Child Tax Benefit. ... In light of the factors to be considered, which was based on care, attention, participation and involvement, and in view of the evidence adduced in the present case, I must conclude that the appellant has brought insufficient evidence to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that she has satisfied the condition set out in paragraph (b) of the definition of 'eligible individual' in section 122.6 of the Act, namely that she was, during the periods of issue, the parent who primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the two children. [5]            Considerable testimony and evidence was entered by both parents as to their contributions in feeding, education, caring for, medically and otherwise, entertaining, taking to various activities, reading and general care exercised obviously assiduously by both parents. ... It reads as follows: For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a)            the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b)            the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c)            the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d)            the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e)            the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f)             the attendance to the hygenic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g)            the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h)            the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. [6]            Considering all the evidence, I have not been convinced that the decision of CCRA was incorrect. ...

"adjusted income" of an individual for a taxation year means the total of all amounts each of which would be the income for the year of the individual or of the person who was the individual's cohabiting spouse or common-law partner at the end of the year if no amount were included in respect of a gain from a disposition of property to which section 79 applies in computing that income; "base taxation year", in relation to a month, means (a)            where the month is any of the first 6 months of a calendar year, the taxation year that ended on December 31 of the second preceding calendar year, and (b)            where the month is any of the last 6 months of a calendar year, the taxation year that ended on December 31 of the preceding calendar year; "cohabiting spouse or common-law partner" of an individual at any time means the person who at that time is the individual's spouse or common-law partner and who is not at that time living separate and apart from the individual and, for the purpose of this definition, a person shall not be considered to be living separate and apart from an individual at any time unless they were living separate and apart at that time, because of a breakdown of their marriage or common-law partnership, for a period of at least 90 days that includes that time;... ... I take it however that when the various proceedings and orders refer to "primary residence" in relation to a person they are referring to that person who in effect is the "eligible individual" as defined in the Act. [5]            Regulation 6302 establishes the factors to be considered to determine "eligible individual". That regulation reads as follows: For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a)            the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b)            the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c)            the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d)            the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e)            the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f)             the attendance to the hygenic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g)            the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h)            the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. [6]            A child tax benefit is a geared-to-income mechanism in which the benefit may be increased or reduced depending upon the income level of parents who are cohabiting or in cases of parents who are separated, the income level of the eligible individual. [7]            The adjusted income figure used in the calculation of benefit entitlement is that for the base year. ...

As an example, alcohol is considered unnecessary for doing business and is seldom considered a reimbursable expense. ... Subsection 8(2) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter, the " Act ") makes it clear that no amounts other than those specifically described in section 8 may be deducted in computing income from an office or employment. [14]          The appellant therefore submits that the expenses in question are legitimate entertainment expenses and should be considered business expenses under paragraph 8(1)(f) of the Act. [15]          The respondent submits that not all the conditions of paragraph 8(1)(f) of the Act have been met and that, even if they have been, the expenses claimed were not incurred in order to produce income. ...

Since this receipt is outside the period in question, it cannot be considered. ... These receipts are therefore of no assistance to the Appellant and cannot be considered as establishing a valid claim to ITCs. ... It therefore cannot be considered as establishing a valid claim to an ITC for the purposes of the Act. ...