Search - considered

The FCA specifically considered subparagraph 122.6 (e) (ii) of the ITA, the same statutory provision raised in this appeal. ... The Appellants must be considered in their unique, distinct circumstances. [144] [180] The Respondent relies on Toussaint, Irshad [145], and Li [146] for the proposition that immigration status is not an analogous ground. ... This is not a free-standing ground that must be considered when determining whether s. 122.6 is constitutional. ...

The Court considered the Minister’s position that, as a category, payments from an RRIF are not pension payments under paragraph (f) of the “pension income” definition in section 14 of the OAS Regulations and then stated, “[w]hile these arguments have merit, they fall short of being compelling in my view.” ... In the course of considering whether the lump sum payment could be an “annuity payment” (caught by paragraph (a) of the “pension income” definition) or a “ superannuation or pension payment” (caught by paragraph (f) of the “pension income” definition), the Court stated the following [underlining added]: [46] I recognize in certain cases, funds from an RRIF could be considered to be pension income. ... In light of the history and the fact that the 2007 amendments to section 14 of the OAS Act were part of an extensive package of amendment that I presume to have been carefully considered, I do not feel that this an appropriate circumstance to adopt an interpretation that departs from the language used in section 18 (and subsections 14(2) to (6)) solely on the basis that a literal interpretation would produce an absurd result. ...

No. 1056, Judge Sarchuk of this Court considered the concept of SR&ED with respect to the 1982 and 1983 taxation years. ... In that case, the TCC considered whether interest amounts in relation to a limited recourse mortgage were contingent liabilities. ...   [92]     The witness asserted that, in Brazil, three-month transactions are considered short-term transactions, three- to six-month transactions are considered medium‑term, and those longer than six months are considered long-term. ...

The general canons of construction must be considered and the meaning of words determined from a consideration of all relevant statutory or regulatory provisions. ... The amount of a terminal loss that the taxpayer is permitted but failed to take under this section must be considered as depreciation allowed for the purposes of the calculation of the undepreciated capital cost of such property. ... The meaning of the word “acquired” as used in subsection 20(5) was fully considered by my brother Cattanach, J in MNR v Wardean Drilling Limited, [1969] 2 Ex CR 166; [1969] CTC 265; 69 DTC 5194. ...

Definition of Trust 104 (1) In this Act, a reference to a trust or estate (in this subdivision referred to as a “trust”) shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be read to include a reference to the trustee, executor, administrator, liquidator of a succession, heir or other legal representative having ownership or control of the trust property, but, except for the purposes of this subsection, subsection (1.1), subparagraph (b)(v) of the definition “disposition” in subsection 248(1) and paragraph (k) of that definition, a trust is deemed not to include an arrangement under which the trust can reasonably be considered to act as agent for all the beneficiaries under the trust with respect to all dealings with all of the trust’s property unless the trust is described in any of paragraphs (a) to (e.1) of the definition “trust” in subsection 108(1). ... Definition of ‘disposition” subsection 248(1) – Referenced by Respondent 248(1) “disposition” of any property, except as expressly otherwise provided, includes (a) any transaction or event […], (b) […] by which, (i) where the property is a share, […], in it, the property is in whole or in part redeemed, acquired or cancelled, […] (v) a trust, that can reasonably be considered to act as agent for all the beneficiaries under the trust with respect to all dealings with all of the trust’s property (unless the trust is described in any of paragraphs (a) to (e.1) of the definition “trust” in subsection 108(1)), ceases to act as agent for a beneficiary under the trust with respect to any dealing with any of the trust’s property, […] (c) any transfer of the property to a trust […] but does not include (e) any transfer of the property as a consequence of which there is no change in the beneficial ownership of the property, except where the transfer is (i) from a person or a partnership to a trust for the benefit of the person or the partnership, (ii) from a trust to a beneficiary under the trust, or (iii) from one trust maintained for the benefit of one or more beneficiaries under the trust to another trust maintained for the benefit of the same beneficiaries, (f) any transfer of the property as a consequence of which there is no change in the beneficial ownership of the property, where […] […] D. ... In Prévost Car, a case heard in Quebec where the civil code was applicable and considered, the Court grappled with the term “beneficial owner” in the context of Section 116 assessments where tax treaties specified differing rates of withholding tax. ...

The only question remaining for decision, therefore, is whether, when dividing the partnership profit at the end of its 1984 fiscal period, in accordance with the agreement just described, the $200,988.97 amount should be considered as an expense to be deducted from the appellant’s share of the cash flow pool, as the payments were made by him, or if it should be considered a cost of establishing the hedge and therefore to be taken into account in computing the hedge pool profit or loss. ... Its significance for present purposes is that if the amount is to be considered an expenditure from the cash flow pool then the appellant can take it into account in computing his share of the partnership income for 1984. ...

  [20]     In reaching this conclusion, Noël, J. also considered the taxpayer's level of involvement in the company's management and financial operations:   In the case at hand, the plaintiff had a special knowledge of the market in which Orell shares were traded. ...   [47]     The effect of changing the way in which a transaction has been reported was one of the factors considered by Rip, J. ...   [51]     Considered in light of the factors in Vancouver Art Metal Works, the evidence persuades me that Mr. ...

At the hearing, a further issue arose as to whether a writ of execution had been returned unsatisfied under paragraph 227.1(2)(a) and is considered below under the heading “Preliminary Matter” ... [30]     In the event I am in error on the Preliminary Matter, I have also considered the Appellant’s primary basis for his appeal; namely, that he was not a director of JSL at the relevant time under subsection 227.1(4) of the Act.   ... In reaching his decision, Rip, J. also considered certain provisions of the Canada Evidence Act; that legislation was not raised by counsel in their submissions ...

Although conditions were attached to the preliminary advance that was based on the promise to purchase, counsel says that those conditions cannot be considered as entailing any great possibility that the whole deal would fall apart (transcript, pages 222-23). ... Second, the appellants were of the opinion that, for valuation and tax purposes, the emphyteutic lease agreement, as it was not legally effective until August 28, 1996, was a factual element that should not be considered in the determination of the property's fair market value as at July 25, 1996. ... This possibility must therefore be considered in the determination of the fair market value. ...

“qualifying amount” received by an individual in a taxation year means an amount (other than the portion of the amount that can reasonably be considered to be received as, on account of, in lieu of payment of or in satisfaction of, interest) that is included in computing the individual 's income for the year and is   (a) an amount   (i) that is received pursuant to an order or judgment of a competent tribunal, an arbitration award or a contract by which the payor and the individual terminate a legal proceeding, and   (ii) that is   (A) included in computing the individual 's income from an office or employment, or   (B) received as, on account of, in lieu of payment of or in satisfaction of, damages in respect of the individual 's loss of an office or employment,   (b) a superannuation or pension benefit (other than a benefit referred to in clause 56(1)(a)(i)(B)) received on account of, in lieu of payment of or in satisfaction of, a series of periodic payments (other than payments that would have otherwise been made in the year or in a subsequent taxation year),   (c) an amount described in paragraph 6(1)(f), subparagraph 56(1)(a)(iv) or paragraph 56(1)(b), or   (d) a prescribed amount or benefit,   except to the extent that the individual may deduct for the year an amount under paragraph 8(1)(b), (n) or (n.1), 60(n) or (o.1) or 110(1)(f) in respect of the amount so included.   ... Despite the absence of any court or quasi-judicial trappings, the CRA officer was considered by definition a “federal board, commission or other tribunal” ... Armstrong. [17] In that case, all three justices who wrote reasons agreed that the payment being considered, namely a lump-sum payment, was not made pursuant to an order or judgment in a divorce or separation action. ...