Search - considered

Quigley’s objection been better articulated during the discovery, counsel for the Respondent could easily have asked questions about what he considered to be findings of facts from Mariano without regard to whether they were actually findings of fact or not. ...

As stated above, that percentage appears in the CRA Bulletin B-092 as the minimum percentage for a property to be considered as having been “substantially renovated”. [30] There is some confusion inherent in measuring what has or has not been renovated. ...

I have reproduced the analysis below: [22] I have considered the percentage of costs awarded by the Court, including the following: Enhanced Costs Award Case 20% General Electric Capital Canada Inc. v The Queen, 2010 TCC 490 20% (and 60%) Grenon v The Queen, 2021 TCC 89 30% Klemen v R, 2014 TCC 369 35% Cameco Corporation v The Queen, 2019 TCC 92 35% Damis Properties Inc. v The Queen, 2021 TCC 44 36% CIT Group Securities (Canada) Inc. v The Queen, 2017 TCC 86 39% Chad v The King, 2023 TCC 76 40% Invesco Canada Ltd. v R, 2015 TCC 92 45% Paletta Estate v The Queen, 2021 TCC 41 50% Univar Holdco Canada ULC v The Queen, 2020 TCC 15 IV. ...

There are other matters that must be considered first. [17] I do not agree with the Appellant. [18] It is well established that on an appeal from an assessment there is a normal trial of the issues. ...

The taxpayer was considered to have actually received the money because the payment was held to be “received” as soon as he had an unconditional right to be paid, which was in 1960. [22] In Markman  [3], this Court stated that when money is paid by an employer to a third party for the benefit of the taxpayer, the payment constitutes constructive receipt in the hands of the taxpayer. ...

The Respondent’s admission as regards reducing the amount of the assessment in issue was known to the parties prior to the date of the Notice of Discontinuance filed by the Appellant; the Respondent had already expressed, prior to that date, the willingness that this admission be considered by the Court and that the resulting effects be granted to the Appellant. [23] In view of the foregoing, the Court orders that the judgment rendered as a result of the dismissal of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal pursuant to section 16.2 of the Act be amended so that the appeal filed by the Appellant will be partially allowed for the sole purpose of referring this matter back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in order to address the Respondent’s partial admission and reduce by $19,402.10 the assessment under subsection 160(1) of the ITA, without costs. ...

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. ...

However, there is no doubt that for this period, the Appellant thought he was receiving his own money back and if either the Appellant or his accountant had, for even one brief second, considered these sums, it would have been shown as a return on capital. ...

The Parties’ Positions Residency [9] At the hearing, the parties presented little authority on the issue of the wording of residency used in 118(6)(b) namely, “residence in Canada at any time in the year”, particularly with respect to the use of the phrase elsewhere in the ITA and authorities which may have considered same. ...

Filing Date 4.2 Except as otherwise provided in these Rules and unless otherwise directed by the Court, the date of filing a document is deemed to be (a) in the case of a document filed with the Registry or sent by mail or by fax, the date shown by the date received stamp placed on the document by the Registry at the time it is received; or (b) in the case of a document filed by electronic filing, the date shown on the acknowledgement of receipt issued by the Court Interpretation [17] While no prior authorities have specifically addressed sections Rule 4.1 or Rule 4.2 above, the use of similar language has been previously considered. [18] The case of Covic v MNR [1] concerned a similar issue where an application was stamped by the registry three days after the deadline. ...