Search - considered

[Emphasis added] When a similar issue was considered in relation to subsection 14(1) of the Income Tax Act RSC 1952, in Ken Steeves Sales Limited v MNR, [1955] Ex CR 108; [1955] CTC 47; 55 DTC 1044, Mr Justice Cameron found that the appellant’s method would give a completely inaccurate picture of the year’s operations; would fail to reflect the true profit or loss of the business and further found that there was no evidence of acceptance by the Minister of the appellant’s accounting method. ... The last issue to be considered is whether or not the cash method of computing income utilized by the appellant “has been accepted’’ within the meaning of paragraph 12(l)(b). ...

Without having had the opportunity of hearing the evidence of Mr Hack or the taxpayer’s lawyer, both of whom represented the taxpayer and considered the proposal made by Mr Erlichman, it would, in my opinion, be unwise and imprudent for the Court to enforce the terms of settlement without having greater certainty that the agreement had been clearly and fully accepted by the taxpayer or his official agents. ... In my opinion the wording of Mr Hack’s letter of June 14, 1982 was not sufficiently conclusive to be considered a binding contract between the parties. ...

The circumstances which are considered relevant by the Appellant include the fact that she became a director at the request of her son, who was himself a director and the manager of the business. ... R., [1993] 2 C.T.C. 2825, 93 D.T.C. 1212 (T.C.C.), Bonner J.T.C.C. considered Pidskalny. ...

.: — It was agreed at the outset that evidence given in one would be considered in the other where applicable. ... The Minister issued a refund cheque in the name of the Company on April 1, 1993 and mailed it to what he considered to be the Company’s authorized representatives for the 1992 taxation year, whose address was the same as that appearing on the Company’s tax returns. ...

The reassessments were made beyond the normal reassessment period and concern the acquisition and sale of shares in circumstances that were considered by the Minister to be indicative of trade. ... Only the dealings in the Punters shares were considered to be on income account because of the Appellant’s extensive and active involvement in their trading. ...

This was also a Notice of Objection for the 1991 and 1992 taxation years and was so considered by Revenue Canada. ... The Court is satisfied that the Appellant reasonably concluded that this new information was being considered by the Minister and he could not have been expected to act differently than he did when he was confronted with the next letter from Revenue Canada dated January 26, 1994 indicating that they had not received a response and would reassess him shortly. ...

So, you did consider the M.O.U. in your assessment process; and from the way you considered it, you referred it to the Department of Justice... ... Those subparagraphs read as follows: a) on or about October 31, 1983, the Appellant and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.); b) that M.O.U. established only a framework for future cooperation between the parties wherein the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion indicated that it would provide different types of financial assistance for various development projects being considered by the Appellant; c) the M.O.U. was not binding on either party and did not confer a contractual obligation to perform on either party; d) in accordance with the M.O.U., the parties were to enter into specific contracts for the provision of financial assistance in respect of specific projects of scientific research and experimental development to be conducted by the Appellant; e) in accordance with the contracts mentioned in subparagraph d), which were all entered into after May 23, 1985, the Appellant committed itself to incur expenditures in respect of scientific research and experimental development (herein referred to as “research and development expenses”); f) after May 23, 1985, the Appellant undertook the work contemplated under those specific contracts and incurred research and development expenses in respect of which the Appellant received or was entitled to receive, during the taxation years at issue, $6,580,631 in 1985 and $26,287,861 in 1986 as assistance from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (in the name of the government); Counsel for the applicant referred to the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in Johnston v. ...

He referred to Interpretation Bulletin IT-114 which discussed the various criteria that the Courts have considered in concluding whether or not a particular transaction is an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. ... On that issue the Court is in agreement with counsel for the Respondent and the Court is satisfied that the reasonableness of the actions of the Appellants must be considered at the time that they filed their returns or at least at any time up to the time Revenue Canada made it clear to them that their returns were being reconsidered. ...

One of the important differences between these appeals and O’Neill is that Judge Bowman considered the O’Neill decision in context of a trial with full benefit of the available evidence and factual considerations, whereas in this case, a motion, there are only affidavits and cross-examination on affidavits, and from that and a review of the filed materials I conclude not all the relevant evidence was before the Court. ... After the litigation process continues in this matter including document discovery, examination for discovery and other pre-trial procedures, the situation may be somewhat clearer and as a matter of evidence or as a Charter issue of alleged solicitor-client privilege breach, if still considered appropriate by counsel, may be brought to the trial judge. ...

Instead, he concluded: It would appear that the evidence that is before me is that which the Minister considered when he made his determination, and if that is the case, in following the Tignish case, I can’t go behind the reasoning of the Minister and therefore, as unsatisfactory as it may be for the Appellant, and probably equally for the Payor and Intervenor, I have to dismiss the appeal. ... This was subject to assigning whatever evidentiary weight I considered they deserved in the light of the whole of the evidence. ...