Search - considered

Once the money was received from them, this amount was considered an excess and a refund was made payable to Holbrook Manor. ... In Vantem Holdings Ltd. v. [30] a similar question was considered by Bell T.C.C.J. ...

The Supreme Court considered the result of the transaction and held that subsection 81(1) should apply because the transactions were artificial. ... " However, if these words are not considered, it seems to me that we are ignoring a well settled principle: Parliament does not speak in vain. ...

In the course of that hearing it considered her arguments regarding disclosure. ... This indicates that the power to seek production under section 86 is limited to documents which would be considered relevant at trial. ...

Sometimes, people whose major occupational concern is not farming will be nevertheless be sufficiently interested in farming and invest enough effort and financial resources for their farming business to be considered a business for restricted farm loss purposes. I say may be considered a busi- ness for restricted farm loss purposes because such an operation will only rarely be classified as a business for the purposes of sections 3 and 9 and 18(1)(a) of the Act. ...

Counsel for the appellant cited a number of decisions, and argued that despite certain weaknesses the situation in the instant cases should be considered favourably in light of the tests applied by the courts, in particular as regards the time spent on farm activities and the energy the appellant put into ensuring that his facilities were of exceptional quality. ... As well, noting that there were no animals on the farm until 1990 and that the first stable was built in that year, counsel for the respondent considered that the time the appellant spent working on his land was exaggerated. ...

Ben-Oliel that payroll remittances were current. [48] Further, he considered any issue re payroll remittances to be “tiny” in comparison with safeguarding the million dollars of investment in CNCD he had attracted (presumably including his $100,000 equity investment). ... The circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective “reasonably prudent person” standard. 40. ...

There i s anothe r aspect o f Kuchta t o be considered. Tha t ap p ea l wa s originally assigned to an d hear d b y m y c o lleague Jorr e, J. ... (as he then was) considered whether he was bound by reasons of judicial comity, to apply a decision of Noel, J. ...

He believes that valid reasons for relocation that are specific to disability were not considered when Parliament imposed the 40-kilometre distance requirement. [36] The criteria at issue are found in the definition of an “eligible relocation” in subsection 248(1): eligible relocation  means a relocation of a taxpayer in respect of which the following apply: (a) the relocation occurs to enable the taxpayer (i) to carry on a business or to be employed at a location (in section 62 and this definition referred to as “the new work location”) that is, except if the taxpayer is absent from but resident in Canada, in Canada, or (ii) to be a student in full-time attendance enrolled in a program at a post-secondary level at a location of a university, college or other educational institution (in section 62 and this definition referred to as “the new work location”), (b) the taxpayer ordinarily resided before the relocation at a residence (in section 62 and this definition referred to as “the old residence”) and ordinarily resided after the relocation at a residence (in section 62 and this definition referred to as “the new residence”), (c) except if the taxpayer is absent from but resident in Canada, both the old residence and the new residence are in Canada, and (d) the distance between the old residence and the new work location is not less than 40 kilometres greater than the distance between the new residence and the new work location; [37] In considering the purpose and effect of this definition, the Federal Court of Appeal recognized that an employee may have to move in order to remain within a practical commuting distance of a new job. [20] The Federal Court of Appeal also recognized that Parliament limited the deduction to moves that bring a taxpayer at least 40 kilometres closer to the new work or school location, in order to prevent the provision from being invoked when a taxpayer simply desires a change in residence. [21] [38] Dr. ... Appendix “A” Medical expenses 118.2(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a medical expense of an individual is an amount paid […] (i) for, or in respect of, an artificial limb, an iron lung, a rocking bed for poliomyelitis victims, a wheel chair, crutches, a spinal brace, a brace for a limb, an ileostomy or colostomy pad, a truss for hernia, an artificial eye, a laryngeal speaking aid, an aid to hearing, an artificial kidney machine, phototherapy equipment for the treatment of psoriasis or other skin disorders, or an oxygen concentrator, for the patient; […] (l.2) for reasonable expenses relating to renovations or alterations to a dwelling of the patient who lacks normal physical development or has a severe and prolonged mobility impairment, to enable the patient to gain access to, or to be mobile or functional within, the dwelling, provided that such expenses (i) are not of a type that would typically be expected to increase the value of the dwelling, and (ii) are of a type that would not normally be incurred by persons who have normal physical development or who do not have a severe and prolonged mobility impairment; (l.21) for reasonable expenses relating to the construction of the principal place of residence of the patient who lacks normal physical development or has a severe and prolonged mobility impairment, that can reasonably be considered to be incremental costs incurred to enable the patient to gain access to, or to be mobile or functional within, the patient’s principal place of residence, provided that such expenses (i) are not of a type that would typically be expected to increase the value of the dwelling, and (ii) are of a type that would not normally be incurred by persons who have normal physical development or who do not have a severe and prolonged mobility impairment; […] (l.5) for reasonable moving expenses (within the meaning of subsection 62(3), but not including any expense deducted under section 62 for any taxation year) of the patient, who lacks normal physical development or has a severe and prolonged mobility impairment, incurred for the purpose of the patient’s move to a dwelling that is more accessible by the patient or in which the patient is more mobile or functional, if the total of the expenses claimed under this paragraph by all persons in respect of the move does not exceed $2,000; […] (m) for any device or equipment for use by the patient that (i) is of a prescribed kind, (ii) is prescribed by a medical practitioner, (iii) is not described in any other paragraph of this subsection, and (iv) meets such conditions as are prescribed as to its use or the reason for its acquisition; to the extent that the amount so paid does not exceed the amount, if any, prescribed in respect of the device or equipment; Moving expenses 62 (1) There may be deducted in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year amounts paid by the taxpayer as or on account of moving expenses incurred in respect of an eligible relocation, to the extent that (a) they were not paid on the taxpayer’s behalf in respect of, in the course of or because of, the taxpayer’s office or employment; (b) they were not deductible because of this section in computing the taxpayer’s income for the preceding taxation year; (c) the total of those amounts does not exceed (i) in any case described in subparagraph (a)(i) of the definition eligible relocation in subsection 248(1), the total of all amounts, each of which is an amount included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the taxation year from the taxpayer’s employment at a new work location or from carrying on the business at the new work location, or because of subparagraph 56(1)(r)(v) in respect of the taxpayer’s employment at the new work location, and (ii) in any case described in subparagraph (a)(ii) of the definition eligible relocation in subsection 248(1), the total of amounts included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year because of paragraphs 56(1)(n) and (o); and (d) all reimbursements and allowances received by the taxpayer in respect of those expenses are included in computing the taxpayer’s income. ...

Analysis [20] In Waldron v The Queen, [39] this Court considered the two-year deadline in the Excise Tax Act for filing a new housing rebate application where an officer of Revenue Canada (predecessor of the CRA) had made a representation about the filing deadline that was not entirely accurate. ... (Emphasis added) … [7] The issue of estoppel has been considered in a number of cases and the principle which generally can be taken therefrom is that no representation involving an interpretation of law by a servant or officer of the Crown can bind it. ...

On the other hand, the respondent allowed only $5,000 per year for farm losses, on the main basis that the appellant had changed his main source of income and therefore he must be considered a gentleman farmer. ... The gross expenditures may appear to Revenue Canada-Taxation to be of sufficient magnitude based on dollar volume to be considered either the “chief source of income” or the chief source of income is a “combination of farming and some other source of income”. ...