Search - considered

Suffice it to say that all of these facts will not be repeated here but are considered by the Court in making its decision ...   [86]          The Court is satisfied that there was nothing that any of the recipients could have done other than being informed of the intentions of the Appellant that might be considered to be acceptance of an offer regarding the receipt of the shares ...

It is clear from the pleadings and the evidence that in assessing, the Minister considered only whether or not Canalerta carried on "scientific research and experimental development" within the meaning of section 2900 of the Regulations. ... Respondent's argument In his submission that Canalerta's activities did not constitute scientific research and experimental development, counsel for the respondent cited several reported cases where this Court considered whether a particular activity fell within the subsection 2900(1) definition of that term. ...

For paragraph 251(1)(b) to apply, the transferor has to be either the trust created by the will or the estate, a trust and an estate being considered one and the same by virtue of subsection 104(1) of the Act. ... Higgins, and the appellants considered that particular fund/plan to fall within the category above-described and that eventual payment of any remaining funds upon his death would be made by London Life pursuant to its unambiguous contractual obligation. ...

The bid from Tolko was considered by far the most favourable. Tolko proposed "a purchase price of $180,000,000 plus an amount "equal to the estimated value of the net purchased working capital less the estimated amount of the long term reforestation liabilities of the division (the "Price"), subject to the following conditions": [4] …   1.         ... Further, the Respondent suggests that if the Appellant is considered to have made any expenditure by foregoing consideration, the nature of that expenditure results in an enduring benefit and, as such, is a capital outlay that is not deductible from income.   ...

Furthermore, the Insurers agreed to insure the improved property for $5,750,000. [31]     Counsel for the appellant considered this valuation to be instrumental in the determination of a gain. ... The Minister considered the amount allocated for lost income as proceeds of disposition of intangible property, with the result that the amount included in income was 75 per cent of the settlement amount. ...

The Queen. [10] In that case, Justice Archambault determined that the cost of the inventory that the appellant had failed to pay its parent company ("Flexi") should not be considered an uncollectible debt. ... That Justice Archambault, in arriving at that conclusion, considered the lack of collection activity and that certain accounting records showed trade accounts as long-term receivables and as "investments" in certain consolidated statements, does not suggest that paragraph 20(1)(p) was not the appropriate provision to apply in years that debts were established to have been uncollectible. ...

Where an agent makes a payment on behalf of a purchaser, the purchaser is considered to have paid that consideration and is therefore the only “ recipient ” of the supply. ... It appears that different arguments were considered by the Court in A&W than were made in the present appeal. [47]         In conclusion, the Appellant is not entitled to claim ITCs for expenses related to the Fund and which the Appellant paid in accordance with the Financing Agreement. (2) Did the Appellant provide documents to identify those expenses which apply directly to its commercial activities? ...

Benefits conferred by Divine (iv)            For the years 2005 and 2006, the amounts totalling $405,310 and $287,412 respectively transferred by Moneygram to Divine were remitted to the intended recipients and consequently cannot be considered as shareholder benefits conferred on him by Divine. Personal expenses paid by the corporation (v)              Personal expenses that were paid with a corporate credit card were reimbursed by him and consequently cannot be considered as a benefit conferred by a corporation on a shareholder. ...

. … Application of subsection (2) (4) Subsection (2) applies to a transaction only if it may reasonably be considered that the transaction (a) would, if this Act were read without reference to this section, result directly or indirectly in a misuse of the provisions of any one or more of (i) this Act, (ii) the Income Tax Regulations, (iii) the Income Tax Application Rules, (iv) a tax treaty, or (v) any other enactment that is relevant in computing tax or any other amount payable by or refundable to a person under this Act or in determining any amount that is relevant for the purposes of that computation; or (b) would result directly or indirectly in an abuse having regard to those provisions, other than this section, read as a whole. … Determination of tax consequences (5) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), and notwithstanding any other enactment, (a) any deduction, exemption or exclusion in computing income, taxable income, taxable income earned in Canada or tax payable or any part thereof may be allowed or disallowed in whole or in part, (b) any such deduction, exemption or exclusion, any income, loss or other amount or part thereof may be allocated to any person, (c) the nature of any payment or other amount may be recharacterized, and (d) the tax effects that would otherwise result from the application of other provisions of this Act may be ignored, in determining the tax consequences to a person as is reasonable in the circumstances in order to deny a tax benefit that would, but for this section, result, directly or indirectly, from an avoidance transaction. ... GAAR to be anticipated and to be considered by taxpayers [41]         In short, the Appellant, in the present case as a taxpayer possibly subject to GAAR, could have filed by deducting the future-impugned capital loss, but applying GAAR for the purposes of calculating tax payable. ...

Although the appellant’s Boston Pizza franchise operated for only 27 months, from November 28, 2008, to February 27, 2011, the auditor considered that 50% of the purchase cost of the property had been amortized by the appellant, which was clearly to the appellant’s benefit.  ... Subsection 141.1(3) of the Act broadens the scope of what is considered to be in the course of commercial activities to anything done in connection with the acquisition, establishment, disposition or termination of a commercial activity. […] 36 The making of a supply (which would include a lease or sale) of real property (provided that it is not an exempt supply) will be a commercial activity regardless of whether that supply was part of an activity that could qualify as a business.  ...