Search - considered

Commercial reality is to be considered by the Courts in interpreting tax provisions like subparagraph 40(2)(g)(ii) so long as it is consistent with the text and purpose of the provision. [18]       The ultimate purpose of a parent company or a significant shareholder providing a loan to a corporation is, without question, to facilitate the performance of that corporation thereby increasing the potential dividends issued by the company. ...

The fact that he did not receive a one-hour lunch or breaks, as did the other employees, cannot be considered unreasonable. ...

Either way, the CCRA is not at this stage refusing to cancel the interest arrears. [20]     Counsel for the Von Teichmans suggests that the failure of CCRA to act promptly to cancel the interest arrears after the letter of March 17, 1999 is one instance of a misrepresentation and another is the December 6, 2002 letter that implies that the matter will be considered afresh. ...

We would also emphasize that although the reasonable expectation of profit is a factor to be considered at this stage, it is not the only factor, nor is it conclusive. ...

He considered himself to be an artist and he also proposed to teach his students how to draw Bart Simpson, to which the Appellant did not object. ...

Alternatively, he submits that if the Property is considered to be a capital investment of the Appellant, then the property taxes, interest and maintenance are not deductible as current expenses and are capital in nature. [3]      Mr. ...

Marshall, [10] the Federal Court of Appeal dealt with an application by the Crown to determine whether both parents could be considered to primarily fulfil the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the children of the marriage. ...

The meaning of the word "transfer" was considered in The Executors of the Estate of David Fasken v. ...

Dannehl used in calculating 60 per cent of total expenses as being attributable to his business, the appellant said that she wrongly considered the drawings as being personal expenditures. ...

APPENDIX Assumptions of Fact   In deciding as he did, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact:   (a)      the Appellant operated a business which packaged and distributed disposable picnic supplies;   (b)     the Appellant's business operated year round but was busiest in the summer and at Christmas;   (c)     the share structure of the Appellant was as follows:                      Gordon Craig        54%   (husband)(hereinafter "the Shareholder")           Lorraine Craig       51%   (wife)                    the Worker            5%   (d)     the three shareholders above were also directors of the Appellant;   (e)      the Worker is the son of the Shareholder and Lorraine Craig;   (f)      the Worker and the Appellant are related to each other within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.) c. 1, as amended (the " Act ");   (g)     the Worker was hired as a manager;   (h)     the Worker's duties included overseeing the day-to-day operations and supervising the buyers, sales, production and warehouse staff;   (i)      the Worker earned a set salary of $51,000.00 per year;   (j)      the Worker was paid $2,125.00 on a semi-monthly basis;   (k)     the Appellant set the Worker's rate of pay;   (l)      the Worker's wage was reasonable;   (m)    contributions, premiums and tax were withheld from the Worker's wages;   (n)     the Worker was paid on a regular and consistent basis;   (o)     the worker did not provide unpaid services during the period under review;   (p)     the Worker also received bonuses as follows:             2000                      $ 8,000           2001                      $23,000           2002                      $31,000   (q)     the Appellant's arm's length managers were also eligible for bonuses;   (r)      the Appellant made the decisions with regards to bonuses;   (s)      the Worker's T4 earnings from the Appellant were as follows:             2000                      $63,706           2001                      $73,422           2002                      $82,639     (t)      the Worker received paid vacation leave;   (u)     the Appellant provided a benefit plan for their employees, including the Worker;   (v)     the Appellant had set business hours of 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday to Friday;   (w)     the Worker normally worked during the Appellant's business hours;   (x)     the Worker worked an average of 40 hours per week;   (y)     the Worker's hours and days were dictated by the business and the industry;   (z)      the Appellant expected the Worker to work whatever hours were required to get the job done;   (aa)    the Worker could come and go as he pleased;   (bb)   the freedom to come and go was also given to the Appellant's arm's length managers;   (cc)    the Worker was not supervised;   (dd)   the Shareholder was the president of the Appellant;   (ee)    the Shareholder was the president of the business;   (ff)     the Shareholder, Lorraine Craig and the Worker were all involved in major decisions;   (gg) the Shareholder had the final say on major decisions;   (hh)    the Shareholder was available to the Worker for questions or guidance;   (ii)      the Worker regularly met with the Shareholder to discuss business decisions;   (jj)      the Worker had signing authority for the Appellant's bank account;   (kk)    the Worker has not signed business loans or guarantees for the Appellant;   (ll)      the Worker has not borrowed money to or from the Appellant;   (mm)  the Worker notified the Appellant of any leave required;   (nn)    the Worker's personal service was required;   (oo)   the Worker performed his services at the Appellant's premises;   (pp)   the Appellant provided all of the tools and equipment required including a computer, phone, office and work location;   (qq)   the Appellant provided the Worker with a company credit card for business expenses;   (rr)     the Appellant reimbursed the Worker for any significant expenses incurred;   (ss)    the Appellant stated that Worker was treated differently than other employees because he was included in all decisions ad the Appellant would not have replaced the Worker;   (tt)     the Minister considered all of the relevant facts that were made available to the Minister, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, and   (uu)    the Minister was satisfied that it was reasonable to conclude that the Worker and the Appellant would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length.       ...