Search - considered

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.  ...

The word hypothesis in this context is normally considered to mean a provisional concept which is not inconsistent with known facts and serves as a starting point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved objectively. [14] In other words, a hypothesis is a statement to be tested by an experiment or a trial. [15] (a) Fire Curtain Project [27]         In working on the Fire Curtain Project, JTR conducted eight experiments. ... Project considered complete. While the “next steps” entries on the Experiment Summary Sheets for Experiments 1, 2, 3 and 7 (which presumably stated what was to follow in Experiments 2, 3, 4 and 8 respectively), purported to set out hypotheses, the particular statements were not formulated as propositions or suppositions to be tested. ...

The position advanced was that the similar facts were not logically relevant in determining the matter in issue in the present appeals nor was there any substantial connection between the actions of the Appellants during the period of time previously audited and the circumstances that are before the Court. [11] [25] It is generally accepted that evidence of similar facts is considered collateral and is generally inadmissible unless there is, as Bull J.A. observed in MacDonald v. ... I have considered Erlich's testimony on this issue and am not at all satisfied that it supports the deductibility of the amounts in issue. ...

The Minister improperly considered some facts. The Minister improperly interpreted the facts and made an error in law. ... The Court is satisfied that at that first stage, before the Court overturns the Minister's decision, that it has to be satisfied that the Minister failed to consider the proper facts, that he considered improper facts, that he did not act judicially, that he did not act reasonably, or that the decision that he made was unreasonable, having regard to all of the evidence. [59] The Court is satisfied that in order for the Minister's decision to be overturned it need not be satisfied that all of the facts upon which the Minister relied have been disproved. ...

It was Louis Valcourt who purchased Henri Lepage’s shares, whereas Éric Valcourt did not invest a penny. [76] The loan should therefore have been made to Louis Valcourt. [77] Georges Bégin asked the Bank to make the necessary correction and this was done, but it took a long time because of a change in managers. [78] In 1994 the company did not have a bank loan, but in 1995 it obtained a $4,000 credit line. [79] The item [TRANSLATION] “$5,000 rental expenses” in the financial statements (Exhibit A-1) was merely a tax expenditure, as the amount was not paid annually to the owner of the building, whose name Georges Bégin did not know. [80] Henri Lepage had no employees other than his wife. [81] The Bank at all times considered that the $40,000 loan had in fact been made to Louis Valcourt. ... It is clear that she worked for the payer when she was not being paid. [168] Her salary was quite high compared to that of Henri Lepage's spouse and the business's deficit should also be considered. [169] In these circumstances, it is not reasonable to conclude that the contract of employment would have been substantially similar if she had been dealing with the payer at arm's length. [170] Louis Valcourt said that the reason the female appellant was not paid outside the period at issue was that the company did not have the resources to pay her. [171] The female appellant was not paid her share of the rent for the part of the house occupied by the business and someone dealing with her employer at arm's length would certainly have required payment thereof. [172] Towards the end of the period at issue she was pregnant and had difficulty continuing with her work. [173] She is undoubtedly good at sales, but that is not what the Court has to decide. [174] The transaction at Price Club is not relevant to the outcome of this case. [175] An unrelated person would certainly not have taken out a hypothec two thirds of which was for the store without receiving rent in return. [176] Fabienne Synnott's appeal must therefore be dismissed. ...

He was considered to be in the Highly Gifted Learner Range and had a wide variety of special needs which should be met in order to satisfy his intellect. ... However, even though nearly every receipt of revenue is considered income by the taxing authority, not every expenditure in life is deductible. [36] The evidence relating to Michael Robinson did not demonstrate he had a mental handicap and there was nothing issued by Dr. ...