Search - considered

In the circumstances of this case I have concluded that the most appropriate exercise of my discretion is to vacate the assessments. [24] O'Neill Motors [19] was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal and Linden J. supported that statement stating at page 6428: I would like to specifically underscore the words of the Tax Court Judge, with which I fully agree, to the effect that this type of extreme remedy must not be considered to be an automatic one, being reserved only for cases of serious violations where other remedies are insufficient.... ... I agree with the Minister's statement that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the Appellant's acknowledgement with respect to the pool table revenues to vacate the entire assessment. [31] I have considered the various options open to me which include: (i) finding the notes were of little significance in the arriving at the assessments; (ii) a simple exclusion of the notes; (iii) a Suarez solution; [26] and (iv) a wholesale vacating of all assessments. ...

Thus at the end of the day all of the facts must be considered and all of the relevant criteria or tests enunciated in the case law must be applied. [35] The expression "at arm's length" was considered by Bonner, T.C.J. in McNichol et al. v. ...

The Queen, 86 DTC 6421 at 6423 where the Court listed five different tests to be considered in deciding whether or not the transfers were an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. ... They were aware of the possibility of purchase by persons of Oriental background who considered that the numbers 8 or 88 were indeed lucky numbers. ...

He submits that this cannot be considered as a negligible residual value to be paid upon exercising the option to purchase. ... A transaction is considered a sale rather than a lease where any one of the following situations applies: (a) the lessee following the payment of specific rental costs, automatically acquires title to the property; (b) the lessee is required to purchase the property from the lessor during or upon termination of the lease agreement or is required to guarantee that the lessor will receive the entire option price from the lessee or a third party; (c) the lessee has the right during or upon the expiry of the lease to acquire the property at a price which at the commencement of the lease is substantially less than the probable fair market value of the property when the lessee is permitted to acquire the property; or (d) the lessee has the right during or upon the expiry of the lease to acquire the property at a cost and pursuant to terms and conditions which at the commencement of the lease are such that no reasonable person would fail to exercise the option to purchase. ...

To formulate a decision then, the overall evidence must be considered taking into account those of the tests which may be applicable and giving to all the evidence the weight which the circumstances may dictate. ... The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors, which may be of importance, are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk be taken, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task. ...

The respondent appears to be suggesting that this agreement is the only one that should be considered for the purposes of the instant case. ... Discharge [40]          The discharge of March 14, 1997 must now be considered. ...

This investment should be considered only by those investors who are able to make a long term investment. ... The Queen, 96 DTC 1025. [15] In determining whether the partnership, considered as a notional separate person, is engaged in an adventure in the nature of trade, one must look at what the partnership actually does and at what the motives and intentions of the persons who in fact run the partnership are. ...

By questioning not the relevance or truth of the facts relied upon by the Minister but simply the weight to be attached to the various facts otherwise properly considered, the Tax Court Judge, in effect, overruled the Minister's discretionary determination without first having concluded that the determination had been made in a manner contrary to law. In doing so, he improperly substituted his own independent assessment of the evidence for that of the Minister, thereby usurping the discretionary authority which Parliament clearly and unambiguously entrusted to the Minister. [154] In Guylaine Collin's appeal the Minister did not act in bad faith, took all the relevant circumstances into account and did not take irrelevant factors into account. [155] Furthermore, there is sufficient well-established evidence to support his decision. [156] The Court does not have to question the importance or weight attached to the various facts which were properly considered by the Minister. [157] Guylaine Collin's appeal must therefore be dismissed and the subject decision regarding her affirmed. [158] For all these reasons, the Court allows Nicole Rioux's appeal and reverses the decision in her case, but dismisses Guylaine Collin's appeal and affirms the decision in her case. ...

He stated: 43. . . the law will impute knowledge to a taxpayer who, in circumstances that dictate or strongly suggest that an inquiry should be made with respect to his or her tax situation, refuses or fails to commence such an inquiry without proper justification. [26]         It has been held that in drawing the line between “ordinary” negligence or neglect and “gross” negligence, a number of factors have to be considered: (a)     the magnitude of the omission in relation to the income declared, (b)     the opportunity the taxpayer had to detect the error, (c)      the taxpayer’s education and apparent intelligence, (d)     genuine effort to comply. ... He summarized the governing principles to be applied at paragraph 65: a)         Knowledge of a false statement can be imputed by wilful blindness. b)         The concept of wilful blindness can be applied to gross negligence penalties pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Act.... c)         In determining wilful blindness, consideration must be given to the education and experience of the taxpayer. d)         To find wilful blindness there must be a need or a suspicion for an inquiry. e)         Circumstances that. . . indicate a need for an inquiry prior to filing... include the following: i)          the magnitude of the advantage or omission; ii)         the blatantness of the false statement and how readily detectable it is; iii)        the lack of acknowledgment by the tax preparer who prepared the return in the return itself; iv)        unusual requests made by the tax preparer; v)         the tax preparer being previously unknown to the taxpayer; vi)        incomprehensible explanations by the tax preparer; vii)       whether others engaged the tax preparer or warned against doing so, or the taxpayer himself or herself expresses concern about telling others. f)         The final requirement for wilful blindness is that the taxpayer makes no inquiry of the tax preparer to understand the return, nor makes any inquiry of a third party, nor the CRA itself. [28]         This is certainly not an exhaustive list and there may be other factors that may need to be considered depending on the circumstances of any particular case. [29]         In the case at bar, I am satisfied that the Appellant did not knowingly make a false statement. ...

Hence, this issue will need to be resolved by a review of the text of the specific provisions of the CPP legislation, informed by the context of the related provisions of the CPP, considered in the context of the administration of those provisions by Service Canada and CRA, and having regard to achieving the purposes of the CPP. ... On the other hand, the employer would have no way of verifying the correctness of such information as provided for by an employee, nor of removing the risk of an employee, innocently or intentionally, providing incorrect information or documents. [45]         The issue raised by these facts is whether the employer legally bears the risk that an employee file who files a CPT30 election with CRA and provides a copy to the employer, which by its terms certifies that the employee qualifies, is in fact mistaken or otherwise does not in fact qualify to make such an election. [46]         The issue of whether the employer should also further bear the risk of penalties need not be considered as the Respondent, wisely, conceded that the assessment of a penalty was not appropriate in this case. [47]         I find on the evidence that Mrs.  ...