Search - considered

The Appeals officer considered the recommendations of the second auditor, and accepted same, reflected in the subject March 22, 2017 reassessments. [14] The March 22, 2017 net worth reassessments reduced the June 15, 2015 net worth reassessments in the appellant’s favour from $5,540,547 to $473,179. [15] Also the appellant cites “unnecessary ‘harassment’” of the taxpayer in relation to CRA investigating “into her family financial affairs”, “visits to the appellant’s bank”, “all paint[ing] a negative picture of the appellant to others, as a tax evader or cheat.” [4] [16] The appellant argues that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to vacate the reassessments due to this “illegitimate process”. ... Virtually no water consumption in late 2007 and into the first two months of 2008 further supports this conclusion. [53] It seems questionable that the appellant continued to access the Mineola Gardens premises solely for night-time sleeping, while avoiding any water usage as indicated by the nil water usage bill for the first two months of 2008. [54] The term “principal residence” is defined in section 54 of the Act as follows: principal residence of a taxpayer for a taxation year means a particular property that is a housing unit, a leasehold interest in a housing unit or a share of the capital stock of a cooperative housing corporation acquired for the sole purpose of acquiring the right to inhabit a housing unit owned by the corporation and that is owned, whether jointly with another person or otherwise, in the year by the taxpayer, if (a) where the taxpayer is an individual other than a personal trust, the housing unit was ordinarily inhabited in the year by the taxpayer, by the taxpayer spouse or common-law partner or former spouse or common-law, partner or by a child of the taxpayer, … except that, subject to section 54.1, a particular property shall be considered not to be a taxpayer’s principal residence for a taxation year (c) where the taxpayer is an individual other than a personal trust, unless the particular property was designated by the taxpayer in prescribed form and manner to be the taxpayer’s principal residence for the year and no other property has been designated for the purposes of this definition for the year… (A) by the taxpayer, (B) by a person who was throughout the year the taxpayer’s spouse or common-law partner (other than a spouse or common-law partner who was throughout the year living apart from, and was separated under a judicial separation or written separation agreement from, the taxpayer)…. ... R., which states that there is no misrepresentation where, “…a taxpayer thoughtfully, deliberately and carefully assesses the situation and files on what he bona fide believes to be the proper method.” [32] [69] As well, Hansen provides, “…that taxpayers have the right to disagree with the Minister in their interpretation of the Act, without this necessarily being considered a misrepresentation.” [33] [70] As found above, Mineola Gardens was not the appellant’s personal residence insofar as she was only sleeping there, with virtually nil water consumption for the Mineola Gardens property. ...

King (April 12, 2018) Jennifer Goodhart (February 20, July 9–10, 2024) Sam Perlmutter (October 17-18, 2024)   JUDGMENT Having considered the evidence and the submissions presented by the parties, and in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment (the “Reasons”), IT IS ADJUDGED THAT: The Appeal from a reassessment made under the Income Tax Act in respect of the Appellant’s 2010 taxation year is allowed and the reassessment is referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment on the basis that: a) the amount of $157,247, which was assessed as a shareholder benefit or a shareholder appropriation, and the amount of $12,000, which was assessed in respect of the T4A slip described in the Reasons, are not to be included in computing the Appellant’s income for 2010; b) the penalty assessed under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act is cancelled; and c) the real estate commission in the amount of $3,543 was properly included in the Appellant’s income for 2010. ... His answer was that he was the sole operating officer of the company, that he owned shares as previously mentioned and that it was “the intention” that the indebtedness of the company to him be paid before drawings could be considered to be a debt from the appellant to the company. ... He said that he considered that the company owed him about $65,000 (on the note) and that he had the right to draw that money from the company. [55] [41] Concerning the alleged unwritten set-off agreement, Justice Bonner stated: An agreement between a company and its shareholder is not formed by a mere fleeting thought in the mind of the individual who controls it. [56] [42] This same principle was stated as follows in Rose: As I appreciate the evidence in this case, the five individuals in question, believing that a partnership agreement had been executed and knowing that there was intended to be a services agreement, decided in their own minds that they would act on behalf of the partnership in performing the services to be provided under that agreement. ...

  [2]      If the capital property step-up strategy is considered acceptable tax planning, then there would be two tiers of taxation of capital gains in Canada: one tier for those whose capital gain can justify professionals’ fees to implement the strategy, in which case there is no tax on a capital gain in Canada; the second tier for everyone else, in which case capital gains are subject to tax in accordance with Part I of the Act. ... And it is pointed out by Gillese and Milczynski in The Law of Trusts [8]:   Certainty of intention is a question of construction; the intention is inferred from the nature and manner of the disposition considered as a whole. ... In addressing a similar provision in the Canada-US Treaty (Article IV), Justice Iacobucci concluded:   The parties to the convention intended only that persons who are resident in one of the contracting States and liable to tax in one of the contracting States on their “worldwide income” be considered residents for purposes of the convention ...

Subsequently, the shareholders of the corporation caused the corporation to sue the Former Executives to recover what the shareholders considered to be overpaid remuneration. ... Several cases have considered the meaning of the word “cost.” In Stirling, the Federal Court of Appeal stated: As we understand it, the word “cost” in those sections means the price that the taxpayer gave up in order to get the asset; it does not include any expense that he may have incurred in order to put himself in a position to pay that price or to keep the property afterwards. [62] [Emphasis added.] ... In The Armour Group Limited v The Queen, 2018 FCA 134, the Federal Court of Appeal considered a transaction in which the parties had endeavoured to avoid a merger of a leasehold interest with the fee simple title. ...

As noted in Royal Winnipeg Ballet at para. 64, the relevant factors must be considered "in the light of" the parties' intent. ... Judicial silence is no longer considered to guarantee impartiality and neutrality in the decision-making process. ... [Emphasis added.] [35]   For an example of a part-time worker who was considered an employee by the Federal Court of Canada, see Rosen v. ...

Thirdly, it includes items that might be considered unusual for people seeking to limit grocery food purchases to fill-in items and perishables. ... This leads me to conclude that the only explanation is unreported business income. [233]   Liability for penalties must be considered separately for each of the Appellants. ... The house was considered an asset at the end of 2007, the base year for the net worth assessment. ...

Sood Counsel for the Respondent: Pascal Tétrault Benjamin Grant Veronica Pinero   JUDGMENT Having considered the evidence and the submissions presented by the parties, and in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment (the “Reasons”), IT IS ADJUDGED THAT: The Appeals are allowed and the reassessments that are the subject of the Appeals are referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment, on the basis that, for the reporting periods that are the subject of the Appeals, the Appellant is entitled to additional input tax credits in the amount of $97,125.55, subject to paragraph 229 of the Reasons. ... The above submissions will be considered below. First, however, it would be helpful to consider more closely the relationship between the REIT and the LP, and the nature of the Services, in order to ascertain which, if any, of the Services were suitable for acquisition by the REIT, in its capacity (if any) as the agent of the LP. ... This can be expected to require more [than] the Respondent’s suspicions. [153] [189] Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the REIT and the LP presented the Agency Agreements as creating an agency relationship between them, which is the relationship that the REIT and the LP intended to create. ...

Sinnott considered the fact that legitimate businesses do not use cash houses to cash their cheques but instead will deposit their cheques into regular business bank accounts. [124] Further, Ms. ... Only in exceptional circumstances would a Court find that the traveling from home to one’s place of business (or employment) would not be considered a personal expense (Campbell v. ... Sahi should have known that the Subcontractors were not capable of supplying any labour services. [368] Furthermore, I considered the following factors for concluding that Mr. ...

Bellfield can be considered a pioneer. [10]   According to the testimony of certain individuals, some believed that Mr. ... Canada, [24] the Federal Court of Appeal considered the deductibility of expenses that the taxpayer paid to an agent in efforts to sell certain precious gems. ... Canada, [60] the Supreme Court of Canada considered the proper inquiry for the income-earning purpose test under subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i). ...

That paragraph reads as follows:   [85]      It may be useful at this stage to summarize the principles of corporate and taxation law considered in this appeal, in light of their importance.  ...   (4)        Documents other than the share register, the constating documents, and any unanimous shareholder agreement are not generally to be considered for this purpose ... A corporation the voting shares of which are distributed among a large number of persons is usually not considered to be controlled by any group of its shareholders, provided the shareholders do not act together to exercise control. ...