Search - considered

Analysis and Decision: I have considered carefully the submissions of both Appellants. ... M.N.R., 91 D.T.C. 331 [330], 1 considered the taxability of a lump sum amount paid by an employer to an employee who moved from one city to another at the employer’s request. ...

.), Judge Dussault in interpreting Bronfman Trust (supra) said “Secondly, for the purposes of the deduction provided for in paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Act, it has also been established in Bronfman Trust (supra) that what should be considered is not the purpose of the borrowing itself but rather the purpose for which the borrowed money was used.” ... This was a shortcoming of the agreement and may be reflective of the fact that possibly the deductibility of the interest was not considered by the drafters of the separation agreement and only became significant after the agreement was put into place. ...

There is no evidence before me that he or his brother even considered that there would be a profit in year one or any other year. ... Then in paragraph 12, he goes on and says: 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. ...

Cayer and one of his co-workers put it this way: “We have considered taking control of this operation and maximizing the liquidation process; however, this alternative would expose us to a loss. ... He considered it important to pay them those amounts just before the Christmas holidays because of the low wages they were earning. ...

He explained that he did not keep a mileage log so for the purposes of the Canada Revenue Agency audit, his general manager/bookkeeper assisted by compiling his property listings and used Google Maps to determine the distances. [18] [15] For 2012, the appellant deducted expenses for a 2006 Jetta and a 2009 Ford F-150 pickup truck at a rate of 90% business use based on estimated total mileage (business and personal) of 10,000 km and 50,000 km, respectively. [19] The Minister considered a rate of 73% business use of the F-150 only, to be reasonable and allowed $13,501 of the claimed $22,067 for that year. [16] On the lease agreement for the 2006 Jetta, the box which said “Primarily for Personal, Family or Household Use” was checked. [20] In cross-examination, the appellant stated that he checked this box to qualify for financing and that he understood the “Business Use” box to be for situations in which the owner was a distinctly separate entity from the individual. He testified that his two sons had principal use of this vehicle for driving to and from university in Oshawa, but that their mileage would still amount to ten percent of the total mileage on that vehicle. [17] On the retail instalment contract for the 2009 F-150, the appellant is identified as the buyer. [21] However, monthly payments of $1,164.28 appear on Tekrider’s general ledger as payments made. [22] In cross-examination, the appellant stated that Tekrider paid for the vehicle which was used for the appellant’s real estate operations, and that maintenance/service costs were probably paid for by Riley Enterprises. [18] For 2013, he deducted expenses for the same two vehicles plus a 2014 Ford Escape at a rate of 90% business use based on estimated total mileage (business and personal) of 8,000 km for the Jetta, 65,000 km for the F-150, and 5,000 km for the Escape. [23] The Minister considered a rate of 76% business use of the F‑150 only, to be reasonable and allowed $10,207 of the claimed $25,756 for that year. ...

These other schools offered the same provincial curriculum without a religious component and without charging alternative program fees. [28] [19] During the periods under appeal, the appellants issued official tax receipts to parents for 100% of the alternative Christian program fees. [29] Legal framework [20] At the heart of the questions to be determined is what constitutes a gift under the Act. [21] “Gift” is not defined in the Act and the Federal Court of Appeal’s definition in Friedberg continues to be the starting point, i.e. it is “a voluntary transfer of property owned by a donor to a donee, in return for which no benefit or consideration flows to the donor.” [30] In addition, the tax advantage associated with a gift is not ordinarily considered to be a benefit, as doing so would obviate the charitable donation deduction under the Act. [31] [22] With respect to consideration, it is a broad term that encompasses: (a) the inducement to a contract, (b) the cause, motive, price or impelling influence which induces a contracting party to enter into a contract, (c) some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party, or (d) some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other party. [32] [23] One must also consider donative intent when examining whether no benefit or consideration has flowed to the donor, i.e. the donor must intend to impoverish themselves by making the donation. [33] The intent of the donor must be entirely donative [34] and the gift given with the expectation of no return. [35] [24] Section 248(30) of the Act does contemplate a conditional intersection between a gift and its advantage and applies to gifts made after December 20, 2002. ... In those instances, tuition fees paid may be considered charitable donations. ...

Nicosia ought to have completed a Form T2091 and designated the Lio Property as her principal residence on the income tax return of 2016. [24] Historically, the CRA had stated it would not accept a late-filed principal residence designation. [6] However, this position was revised and under certain circumstances, the Minister of National Revenue may accept a late-filed principal residence designation. [25] Generally, the minister's discretion provided under subsection 220(3.2) of the Act applies only to certain elections, not to designations unless a designation is considered to be a deemed election under subsection 220(3.21) of the Act. [26] Pursuant to subparagraph 220(3.21)a.1 of the Act, a principal residence designation prescribed in Form T2091 for the purpose of paragraph (c) in the definition of “principal residence” under section 54 of the Act is considered to be a deemed election. ...

Neither party disputed that the tests to be considered in determining whether a gain realized on a disposition of property is an income gain or a capital gain are as set out in Happy Valley Farms Limited v. ... The attempt was unsuccessful. [2] That was not the end of complaints from this particular neighbour who considered the home built by the Appellants to be a “monster” (email dated March 14, 2015 to the local councillor). ...

Subsection 248(1) defines business as follows: “ business ” includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatever and, except for the purposes of paragraph 18(2)(c), section 54.2 and paragraph 110.6(14)(f), an adventure or concern in the nature of trade but does not include an office or employment; 15 The expression “adventure in the nature of trade” was considered by Thorson P. of the Exchequer Court in Minister of National Revenue v. ... </p>] It is equally well established that even a single operation entered into for gain takes a business character when it cannot properly be considered as an investment but it is to be characterized as a speculation. ...

Provisions annulling the right to terminate the policies and take the cash value before maturity were not required to be included in the policies to make them eligible to be registered, and therefore cannot be considered to be operative. 12 I shall assume for present purposes that counsel is correct in asserting that no such provision was required to be included in these policies to make them eligible for registration. ... Counsel did not refer me to any authority for the proposition that such a provision included in a policy of insurance without the specific concurrence of the policyholder, may be considered to be void, or in some other way inoperative. ...