Search - considered

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. ...

In Zandstra, Heald, J. made the following comments about the nature of a benefit (at page 6419): Applying the above dictionary definitions of “gift” to the facts of these cases, I have concluded that the payments made by these parents to the Jarvis School were not payments made without consideration and cannot therefore be considered “gifts” under section 27(1)(r/)(i).....It seems to me they received consideration from the Jarvis School in the form of education of their children in a separate Christian school in discharge of their duties as parents as they conceived them to be. ...

This is also considered to be entered in error. But the real question is whether there was a sale on October 30, when the Appellant and Farm World signed their deal in Form A (Exhibit A-l, Tab 1). ...

Shared-Custody Parent [33] As set out above, w hen parents are “shared-custody parents”, they are both considered “eligible individuals”. ...

Even if not expressly stated in the reply, it would be relevant that she considered only one deduction to be permissible for the same property and that she reassessed to allow the more favourable deduction, i.e. the reasoning is related. [19] The proposed amendment to paragraph 40(c.1) is particularly benign because it only proposes to clarify the amount of the appellant’s claimed COGS deduction and refers to an assumption already in the reply. [20] The alternative issue/argument as framed in proposed new paragraphs 41.1, 44.1 and 44.2 states that the Minister’s reassessment to disallow the CCA deduction is more favourable to the appellant than disallowing the COGS deduction (and upholding the CCA) would have been. ...

In doing so, the court considered the fact that in Ontario, the term “retroactive” in the context of support payments was a temporal reference (i.e. support to be paid in respect of a period before the date of the court order) and not intended to change history. [7] In that case, the dispute arose over the meaning of the term “retroactive additional periodic child support” in the minutes of settlement and resulting court order. [8] [19] The Federal Court of Appeal also stated that in order for a court order to oblige a person to pay child support arrears, there must be (at the time the court order is made): (1) an express or implied recognition of a pre-existing obligation to pay child support for a prior period, (2) an express or implied recognition of a complete or partial breach of that obligation, resulting in arrears of child support, and (3) an obligation set out in the court order to pay the arrears in whole or in part. [9] [20] In the present appeal, the wording of the August 2020 order meets all the above indicia of an order obliging a person to pay child support arrears. ...

Similarly, I have no way of knowing whether a computer engineer or a technician with networking expertise could have employed standard networking procedures to connect the sensors to the Appellant’s customers’ networks. [24] Based on all of the foregoing, I find that Project 1 does not meet the first test. [25] I note that, as the Appellant never proceeded to the stage of attempting to develop algorithms, I have not considered whether that part of Project 1 would have met the first test. ...

Pillsbury Holdings Limited, 64 D.T.C. 5184, Cattanach, J. of the Exchequer Court of Canada (as it then was) considered the application of subsection 8(1) of the Act, which for the purposes of the case at bar, is identical to the current subsection 15(1) of the Act. ...

Section 4(4) applies here in any case since refusing to apply it would mean penalizing a taxpayer unnecessarily and would leave him no way of obtaining compensation for the withdrawal of amounts which he considers, and has always considered, a contribution of “principal” to an account which is an RRSP in name only. 26 First, the Court would note that the appellant's agent seems to have forgotten that at the hearing he admitted the existence of the RRSP at issue here when he admitted the allegations made in paragraph 7 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, and in particular the allegation set out in subparagraph 7(a) above. 27 Second, except for 1991, the appellant did not include the income from this RRSP in his income for earlier years. ...

Mahoney, J.A. stated as follows: Moldowan suggests that there may be a number of factors to be considered but we are here concerned only with three: time spent, capital committed and profitability. ...