Search - considered

Subsections 118.3(1) and 118.4(1) of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) provide: 118.3(1) Where (a) an individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment, (a.l) the effects of the impairment are such that the individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (a.2) a medical doctor, or where the impairment is an impairment of sight, a medical doctor or an optometrist, has certified inprescribed form that the individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment the effects of which are such that the individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (b) the individual has filed for a taxation year with the Minister the certificate described in paragraph (a.2), and (c) no amount in respect of remuneration for an attendant or care in a nursing home, in respect of the individual, is included in calculating a deduction under section 118.2 (otherwise than by reason of paragraph (2)(b. 1) thereof) for the year by the individual or by any other person, for the purposes of computing the tax payable under this Part by the individual for the year, there may be deducted an amount determined by the formula A x $4,118 where A is the appropriate percentage for the year. 118.4(1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or may reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ... Therefore, it is considered that in WO Clement’s case, 3(b) is the most appropriate release item. ...

This phrase was considered by Fournier, J. in Jolicoeur v. M.N.R., [1960] C.T.C. 346, 60 D.T.C. 1254 (Ex. ... In the defendant’s submission, the time lag to be considered in the context of “all due despatch" is the period that commenced with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, February 11, 1976. ...

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. ... Thus: I have considered the recent jurisprudence on the issue of farm losses cited to me by counsel: Graham v. ...

But he entered a caveat that the weight to be assigned to the evidence should be considered in the light of the fact that Tony did not testify before the Court. ... The conceivability of constructing two buildings was considered with care, but because of the configuration of the property this was discarded by December 1987. ...

The Minister's position is that the amounts are to be considered as a loan to Oakley, that when the account went bad the appellant incurred a capital loss in 1988 and that there can be no carry back of that loss against income in 1986 and/or 1987. ... The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 46, [1985] 2 C.T.C. 111, 85 D.T.C. 5373, extensively reviewed the jurisprudence and appropriate principles of law to be considered and applied to the determination of the classification of an expenditure as being either expense or capital. ...

I agree that I ought to consider the reassessment so that it will not be left in abeyance to the extent it may be considered a reassessment under the federal Act. ... To the extent that the reassessment of 1992 may be considered to have been issued pursuant to the federal Act, the appellant's appeal would succeed for the same reasons as her appeal against the earlier assessment. ...

Schwartz testified the amount of $400,000 was more or less picked from the air" although losses on stock options and of salary were considered. ... In such a case the amount must be considered as a whole.... The question is whether on the facts in the appeal at bar, an amount paid to settle a potential claim for damages is income for tax purposes. ...

Counsel for the respondent countered by pointing to a string of unbroken losses from 1985 through to 1993 and that the recent jurisprudence required a finding that the appellant's farm income was not and could not be considered to be a chief source of income. ... The Federal Court of Appeal then considered full farming losses in the case of Poirier Estate v. ...

This question was considered by the former Chief Justice Cardin of this Court, when he was chairman of the Tax Review Board, in Paolo Violi v. ... However, the testimony of these persons denying they had paid the appellant the alleged amounts would have had to have been considered by the Board if counsel for the appellant had seen fit to call them as witnesses to rebut the respondent's presumptions and discharge the onus of proof on him. ...

For the purposes of paragraph 62(1)(b) [formerly paragraph 47(1)(b)] of the Insurance Act, Regulation SOR/78-18, dated December 29, 1977 states the amount of the deduction that may be made with respect to acquisition expenses shall be the least of the following: (a) the actual acquisition expenses incurred; (b) the proportion of the unearned premiums that may reasonably be considered not to be required for the payment of claims and expenses other than acquisition expenses; and (c) 30 per cent of the unearned premiums. ... The phrase "in respect of" was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Nowegijick v. ...