Search - considered

He pointed out that in 1981 the appellant had considered these receivables to be in the doubtful category and denied that A.D.T. was undercapitalized at its inception. ... He verified that the receivables from A.D.T. were treated the same as all other receivables with the exception of the advantage gained by having access to A.D.T.'s financial statements, and that up until January 1, 1980 collection of A.D.T.'s accounts were not considered doubtful in his discussions with the appellant's management. Beginning in the year January 1, 1981 however, the accumulated unpaid accounts receivable from A.D.T. at that point of time, $158,185, was considered doubtful. ...

But, given the advantage attached to the issue and acquisition of the promissory note, that is, the tax credit, the acquisition and disposition of the promissory note cannot be considered in isolation. ... It is a tantalizingly appealing argument that the promissory note be considered in isolation from the whole of the transaction; however, that is not the real story. What must be considered is the complete transaction and the reason the appellant undertook that transaction. ...

However, if the tax authorities consider that the purchase of the shares of company XYZ are a prescribed benefit reducing the cost of the investment and that at that point the proportion of the research and development expense in the company for a member is greater than the cost of the investment less the proceeds of disposition of the shares, the Colimax project will be considered a tax shelter and a tax shelter number must be obtained.... [51]     Annette Letendre testified at the request of the respondent. ... However, with reference to the Colimax plan dated March 2, 1992, that was followed (Exhibit I-11), the attached tax opinion clearly states that this project would be considered a tax shelter and that a tax shelter number should be obtained. [62]     Where is this document that was not filed with the Court and which stated that the plan being promoted was not a tax shelter? ... Conclusion [64]     Subsection 162(9) of the Act reads as follows: 162(9) Tax shelter identification number- Every person who (a) files false or misleading information with the Minister in an application under subsection 237.1(2) for an identification number for a tax shelter, or (b) whether as a principal or as an agent, sells, issues or accepts a contribution for the acquisition of an interest in a tax shelter before the Minister has issued an identification number therefor, is liable to a penalty equal to the greater of (c) $500, and (d) 3% of the total of all amounts each of which is the cost to each person who acquired an interest in the tax shelter before the correct information is filed with the Minister or the identification number is issued, as the case may be. [65]     In subsection 237.1(1) of the Act, the words "tax shelter" and "promoter" are defined as follows: "tax shelter" means any property in respect of which it may reasonably be considered having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the property that, if a person were to acquire an interest in the property, at the end of any particular taxation year ending within 4 years after the day on which the interest is acquired, (a) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is (i) a loss represented to be deductible in computing income in respect of the interest in the property and expected to be incurred by or allocated to the person for the particular year or any preceding taxation year, or (ii) any other amount represented to be deductible in computing income or taxable income in respect of the interest in the property and expected to be incurred by or allocated to the person for the particular year or any preceding taxation year, other than any amount included in computing a loss described in subparagraph (i),           would exceed (b) the amount, if any, by which (i) the cost to the person of the interest in the property at the end of the particular year, would exceed (ii) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is the amount of any prescribed benefit that is expected to be received or enjoyed directly or indirectly in respect of the interest in the property, by the person or a person with whom the person does not deal at arm's length but does not include property that is a flow-through share or a prescribed property. ...

He also confirmed that although the land had in the past been considered for acquisition and development as part of the appellant's regular business, it was only an idea which was dropped. ... The meaning of the terms undue" and artificial" were considered in Spur Oil Ltd., supra, at page 343 (D.T.C. 5173):... the finding of artificiality in the transaction being examined, does not, per se, attract the prohibition set out in subsection 137(1) [now 245(1)] of the Income Tax Act. ... Considered separately neither of these elements justifies a disallowance of the interest paid under subsection 245(1). ...

They cannot succeed in that purpose unless they are considered to be mandatory requirements and strictly enforced. ... The Queen, [5] Miller J. considered the availability of the due diligence defence in circumstances where the Appellant did not collect and remit tax on certain transactions because it believed that the supplies in question were zero-rated. ... Consequently, the above comments are not to be considered binding upon the Department of National Revenue in respect of any particular situation. ...

In support of this, Justice Sharlow considered the hypothetical situation of Mary. ... Less than a month after the Appellant purchased the Kelso Securities, similar Class “A” Preferred Shares were issued in a private placement for a price of $1.00 per share. [60]         As to the second issue, all of the above demonstrates that the facts of the instant case are very different than those considered by Justice Sharlow in the St.  ... That being so, the Appellant has failed to demolish the Minister’s assumption that the Appellant purchased the Kelso Securities as a means to gain control of his RRSP funds while maintaining the deferral of any tax payable on those same funds. [61]         Moreover, the evidence considered as a whole allows me to infer that the Appellant believed he would receive a collateral tax benefit when he authorized the purchase of the Kelso Securities. ...

A version of the treaty in a language other than one of those in which the text was authenticated shall be considered an authentic text only if the treaty so provides or the parties so agree. 3. ... Therefore the Court did not regard the interest paid by the taxpayer as related to the U.S. source income for the purpose of calculating the foreign tax credit and therefore that the taxpayer was not required to take into account the expenses of earning that income. [47]         In essence the decision turned on the fact that the Income Act as it read at that time did not require a separate computation of income from each source. [48]         Subsequent to that decision, the Act was amended to provide, in subsections 139(1 a) and (1 b), that a taxpayer’s income from each source was to be computed on a separate basis and that deductions, to the extent they could reasonably be considered to relate to a particular source, were assumed to have been deducted in computing the income from that source, and that all deductions allowed in computing the income of a taxpayer were “deemed to be applicable either wholly or in part to a particular source or to sources in a particular place”. ... I agree with the intervener Government of the United States' submission that, in ascertaining these goals and intentions, a court may refer to extrinsic materials which form part of the legal context (these include accepted model conventions and official commentaries thereon) without the need first to find an ambiguity before turning to such materials. [66]         The Supreme Court in Crown Forest also went on, at paragraph 55 of that decision, to observe that the 1977 OECD Model “has world-wide recognition as a basic document of reference in the negotiation, application and interpretation of multilateral or bilateral tax conventions” and was “of high persuasive value in terms of defining the parameters” of the tax treaty under consideration in that case. [67]         Also, although Brazil is not an OECD member, the similarities between the language used in Article XXII(3) of the Treaty and that found in paragraph 23B of the 1977 OECD Model is evidence that the 1977 OECD Model was considered in drafting the Treaty. [68]         The relevant portions of Article 23 B of the 1977 OECD Model read, in English and French, as follows: Article 23B CREDIT METHOD 1. ...

" This bulletin indicates that if a public purpose is served and that the supplies are solely for accountability, then it will be considered that there is no consideration. ... When The Agreement is considered as a whole, there can be no other conclusion other than Alix is the owner of the infrastructure. ... This TIB instructs that generally a grant, made in the public interest, will not be considered as consideration for a supply. ...

Johnson were not considered or examined. Only the purpose of the expenses claimed was considered. ... Johnson maintained that, as a result of the reversal of the book entries, he never received the benefit of what was owed to him by 1259066 and that, alternatively, if shareholder benefits are considered to have been received, he should not be taxed on the entire amount but only on 50% as his spouse should be taxed on the other 50% ...

., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the court may not interfere. ... However, share control (or absence of it) is not necessarily conclusive; it is only a factor to be considered in determining the question of arm's length (Robson Leather Co. v. ... The criteria enunciated in IT-419 have also been the criteria consistently considered by the courts. ...