Search - considered

Section 245 reads: (1) In this section, “tax benefit"' — “tax benefit” means a reduction, avoidance or déferrai of tax or other amount payable under this Act or an increase in a refund of tax or other amount under this Act; “tax consequences’ — “tax consequences” to a person means the amount of income, taxable income, or taxable income earned in Canada of, tax or other amount payable by or refundable to the person under this Act, or any other amount that is relevant for the purposes of computing that amount; “transaction” — “transaction” includes an arrangement or event. (2) Where a transaction is an avoidance transaction, the tax conséquences to a person shall be determined as is reasonable in the circumstances in order to deny a tax benefit that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, from that transaction or from a series of transactions that includes that transaction. (3) An avoidance transaction means any transaction (a) that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit; or (b) that is part of a series of transactions, which series, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. (4) For greater certainty, subsection (2) does not apply to a transaction where it may reasonably be considered that the transaction would not result directly or indirectly in a misuse of the provisions of the Act or an abuse having regard to the provisions of this Act, other than this section, read as a whole. (5) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), (a) any deduction in computing income, taxable income, taxable income earned in Canada or tax payable or any part thereof may be allowed or disallowed in whole or in part, (b) any such deduction, any income, loss or other amount or part thereof may be allocated to any person, (c) the nature of any payment or other amount may be recharacterized, and (d) the tax effects that would otherwise result from the application of other provisions of this Act may be ignored, in determining the tax consequences to a person as is reasonable in the circumstances in order to deny a tax benefit that would, but for this section, result, directly or indirectly, from an avoidance transaction. (6) Where with respect to a transaction (a) a notice of assessment, reassessment or additional assessment involving the application of subsection (2) with respect to the transaction has been sent to a person, or (b) a notice of determination pursuant to subsection 152(1.11) has been sent to a person with respect to the transaction, any person (other than a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) shall be entitled, within 180 days after the day of mailing of the notice, to request in writing that the Minister make an assessment, reassessment or additional assessment applying subsection (2) or make a determination applying subsection 152(1.11) with respect to that transaction. (7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the tax consequences to any person, following the application of this section, shall only be determined through a notice of assessment, reassessment, additional assessment or determination pursuant to subsection 152(1.11) involving the application of this section. (8) On receipt of a request by a person under subsection (6), the Minister shall, with all due dispatch, consider the request and, notwithstanding subsection 152(4), assess, reassess or make an additional assessment or determination pursuant to subsection 152(1.11) with respect to that person, except that an assessment, reassessment, additional assessment or determination may be made under this subsection only to the extent that it may reasonably be regarded as relating to the transaction referred to in subsection (6). ...

While the debt constituted by the balance of a sale price cannot be considered a loan or advance, it also cannot be categorized as simply an account payable, since it is represented by a specific financing instrument. ... If this were the only factor considered, it could be concluded that the amount of the “notes payable” was correctly included in the appellant’s capital for the purposes of the tax under Part 1.3 of the Act. ... The arguments in support of that position were that the legal effect of such instruments was not evident as far as their accounting presentation was concerned and that such instruments represented short-term debts and thus could not be considered external capital used to finance a corporation’s operations. ...

Chartered accountants are not, as a rule, engaged in defending themselves against charges relating to infringements of provincial securities legislation and, therefore, such fees would not generally be considered a usual and accepted business expense associated with the provision of professional accounting services.   ... The first part considered the merits of the allegations, which focused on the nature and quality of public disclosure made by the respondents in respect of Blue Range Resource Corporation in the period April 1, 1997, to December 12, 1998.   14.  ... In a letter dated December 22, 2006, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta informed the appellant that, pursuant to paragraph 101(1) of the Regulated Professions Act (“RAPA”), they considered the Alberta Securities Commission Merits Decision to constitute a complaint under RAPA.   18.  ...

At paragraphs 47 and 60, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the phrase “in lieu of” in the context of the opening words of subsection 212(1):   [47]       However, paragraph 212(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act also includes a payment made in lieu of compensation for the use, in Canada, of property. ... The Appellant submits that the phrase “instead of” is to be preferred in the context of subsection 216(1), especially when subsections 157(2.1) and 218.3(3) are considered. ...   [21]     The Appellant also suggested that the application of subsection 161(7) provides a context within which the section 216 return might be considered. ...

  [5]              My colleague Justice Paris considered a similar appeal in Pan et al v. ... Each university has its own policy but academic remediation or probation usually provides for an extension to the particular resident's residency during which he or she repeats rotations that were considered unsatisfactory ... The Court held that focusing on hours worked and hours spent in studies reasonably distinguished between workers who studied and students who worked: employees working long enough hours to be considered full‑time filled the conventional measure of available time with work. ...

In 1992, updated as of 1 September 1995, the OECD published a Commentary on the views of the Committee on Fiscal Affairs Report on Thin Capitalization. [8] The Committee considered, at paragraph 2, that with respect to Article 9: a) the Article does not prevent the application of national rules on thin capitalisation insofar as their effect is to assimilate the profits of the borrower to an amount corresponding to the profits which would have accrued in an arm’s length situation; b) the Article is relevant not only in determining whether the rate of interest provided for in a loan contract is an arm’s length rate, but also whether a prima facie loan can be regarded as a loan or should be re- garded as some other kind of payment, in particular a contribution to equity capital; [9] c) the application of rules designed to deal with thin capitalisation should normally not have the effect of increasing the taxable profits of the relevant domestic enterprise to more than the arm’s length profit, and that this principle should be followed in applying existing tax treaties. ... The introduction to the Commentary stated that the Committee “considered that existing conventions should, as far as possible, be interpreted in the spirit of the revised Commentaries, even though the provisions of these conventions did not include the more precise wording of the 1977 Model Convention”. ... However with the publication of Revenue Canada’s press release of June 3, 1982, Revenue Canada no longer considered Article IV to apply. ...

And so you do everything you can to provide a real quality of life, and respect them, and have life be as happy and normal as you can make it in an institutional setting. [8]      During the period of construction Revenue Canada officials advised the Society that they considered the construction of the Centre to be a commercial activity, and that it would be required to make a self-assessment of a self-supply of the building under subsection 191(3) of the Act. ... (emphasis added) Removing the unnecessary verbiage, and relating what is left to the facts of this case, leads to the conclusion that if, when the building of the Centre was substantially completed, the appellant gave a person possession of a residential unit in the building under a lease, license or similar arrangement for the purpose of occupying it as a place of residence, then the deeming provision is operative, and there is a self-supply that attracts tax. [10]     Three definitions found in section 123 of the Act must therefore be considered. ... No application was made by the appellant after May 1, 1998 to be designated, nor has the Minister made any such designation since that date. [31]     Counsel for the appellant has advanced several reasons why this apparent absence of a post-May 1998 designation ought not to be considered fatal to its 83% rebate claim. ...

    [21]         She also cites article 1425 of the Civil Code of Québec (CCQ) which provides that the parties' intention must be considered. ... In short, this case law supports the Respondent’s position that it is the date of resignation or removal from office that alone must be considered in determining the starting point of the two-year time period in subsection 323(5) of the ETA.  ___________________________________ 4.      ... These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective “reasonably prudent person” standard. ...

These were persons who were considered to be directors by their actions as opposed to by election or appointment. ... The shareholders, by their acquiescence, could be considered to have cured the irregularity regarding the number of directors on the board and their appointment: see in this respect pages 234 and 235 in the chapter entitled “Irregularities” in F.W. ... It would appear that the Appellants could be considered de jure directors. ...

Even if one considered them applicable to the same subject matter, paragraph 12(1) (i) cannot be considered more specific than subsection 40(1) as both are general provisions dealing with different types of income ...   [22]          Subsection 248(28) reads as follows:   248(28)  Unless a contrary intention is evident, no provision of this Act shall be read or construed   (a)        to require the inclusion or permit the deduction, either directly or indirectly, in computing a taxpayer’s income, taxable income or taxable income earned in Canada, for a taxation year or in computing a taxpayer’s income or loss for a taxation year from a particular source or from sources in a particular place, of any amount to the extent that the amount has already been directly or indirectly included or deducted, as the case may be, in computing such income, taxable income, taxable income earned in Canada or loss, for the year or any preceding taxation year;   (b)        to permit the deduction, either directly or indirectly, in computing a taxpayer’s tax payable under any Part of this Act for a taxation year of any amount to the extent that the amount has already been directly or indirectly deducted in computing such tax payable for the year or any preceding taxation year; or   (c)        to consider an amount to have been paid on account of a taxpayer’s tax payable under any Part of this Act for a taxation year to the extent that the amount has already been considered to have been paid on account of such tax payable for the year or any preceding taxation year ...