Search - considered

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. ...

The Queen. [7] [37] Counsel for the Respondent went on to compare the situation in the present case with that considered in each of the above-mentioned cases. ... Judge Lamarre Proulx of this Court commented as follows at page 155: On the evidence that was before me, I can only conclude that the Appellant’s activities do not meet the threshold required for him to be considered as ‘carrying on a business’. ...

Pat Hasiuk: Re: Corporate Income Tax Returns for 1987, 1988, 1990 and 1991 Following our examination of Nasha Properties Ltd. for the above noted years, we are proceeding to initially assess the following as taxable income of the corporation for the years given: 1987 Unreported business income from various lot sales (see attached schedules) $43,797 Unreported taxable capital gain on the sale to Edison Carvalho ($54,439- $32,000- $4,122) x 50% $9,159 $52,956 1988 Unreported business income from various lot sales (see attached schedules) $72,594 1990 Unreported business income on the sale to Robert Hasiuk (see attached schedules) $14,599 Unreported taxable capital gain (reserve of $4,122 x 75%) 3,092 $17,691 1991 Unreported business income on the sale to Bill Hasiuk (see attached schedules) $19,599 The completion of our examination should not, however, be considered as permission to destroy any books and records. ... My examinations of the records shows that the Minister considered the application for an extension of time for the 1987 and 1988 taxation years, but refused it because it was not filed within the time limited by subsection 166.1(7) of the Act. ...

Analysis [176]        It is clear that, in the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the Minister did not consider the fact that Claudette Pelletier replaced the appellant when she found another job. [177]        Nor did he consider the fact that, in addition to her work at the office, she went to pick up parts when they were needed. [178]        He did not take account of the fact that Jean-Claude Côté himself paid for the wood and electricity for the entire house, which could have compensated for the use of the office space. [179]        He thought that the land where the garage was located was owned by the appellant, whereas Jean-Claude Côté specified that it belonged to the payer. [180]        While she was collecting benefits, the appellant worked just three or four hours a month, which is negligible, whereas the Minister claimed that she worked four hours a week. [181]        Contrary to what the Minister wrote, the appellant was not free to set her hours of work and Jean-Claude Côté controlled her by being at the office and by calling her when he was on the road. [182]        The appellant's earnings were always $380 a week and not $395; it is probably by adding the four percent vacation pay that the Minister arrived at that first figure. [183]        Moreover, contrary to what is stated in subparagraph (k), there is no doubt — based on uncontradicted evidence — that the appellant was not paid without regard to the hours she actually worked. [184]        The Minister wrote that the sales volume and other income were stable throughout the year, but the statement (Exhibit A-2) shows variations from $8,049 in November 1992 to $25,014 in July 1994. [185]        In such a business, it is normal for there to be expenses that recur every month, and the respondent was wrong to write subparagraph (n), cited above, as he did. [186]        The statement (Exhibit A-2) clearly shows that the worker's periods of employment coincided with the periods when the payer was very busy. [187]        According to the evidence, those periods also coincided with the periods actually worked by the appellant. [188]        There is no doubt that the payer needed an employee at its office during the busy periods, and the fact that Claudette Pelletier was hired proves this. [189]        With 40 or 50 calls a day, it is clear that Jean-Claude Côté could not manage alone given everything else he had to do. [190]        There is no doubt that Jean-Claude Côté was the one who decided when the appellant was hired and laid off. [191]        It is natural that there should have been less need for control after a number of years, but the power to control did exist. [192]        When the appellant was not working, Jean-Claude Côté was well organized with telephones at the garage and he could handle things alone. [193]        It is significant that the business telephone lines did not ring throughout the house, that the appellant could not even attend to her household chores while working and that the children, when young, had to be looked after by a babysitter when the appellant was at the office. [194]        It is natural that Claudette Pelletier should have earned less than the appellant given her lack of experience and the fact that she spent less time at the office; the reason Jean-Claude Côté did without her services in the evening was no doubt that she did not want or was unable to work. [195]        It is also significant that Jean-Claude Côté wanted to rehire his spouse in 1997 even if her employment was not considered insurable. [196]        The appellant's wages seem reasonable, and those of the president of the intervener are irrelevant to this case. [197]        Annie Savoie's employment is not to be considered in reaching a conclusion in this case. [198]        Who completed the ledger in 1992 is of little importance. [199]        There is uncontradicted evidence that the appellant was always paid her wages. [200]        The supply of firewood and electricity could validly compensate for the use of office space in the appellant's home. [201]        It is true that there may be profits or losses in any business, and no conclusion can be drawn on that basis; in the case at bar, it is significant that considerable investments were made in 1994 and that this could have had an impact on future years. [202]        The fact that the appellant held no interest in the intervener has not been contradicted. [203]        The decision on appeal in Jolyn Sports, supra, shows that the Court may and must intervene. [204]        The issue of the use of the office is really irrelevant in reaching a conclusion given the history of the two houses involved. [205]        As in Champagne, supra, it must be concluded that the Minister exercised his discretion in a wilful or arbitrary manner, not taking account of all the appellant's work and wrongly considering the small amount of work that was performed on a volunteer basis by the appellant as an important element. [206]        The same conclusion is also reached in Sabourin, supra. [207]        As in Aline Duchesne, supra, the evidence before this Court has changed the nature of the negative aspects alleged in the Reply to the Notice of Appeal by providing an explanation of the situation that is plausible and favourable to the appellant. [208]        All seasonal businesses, or some of them, are generally difficult to run. [209]        As in Croteau, supra, the work done by the appellant before and after the periods at issue was very marginal. [210]        As noted in Claude Charron, supra, there is nothing to stop an individual seeking to secure the benefits conferred by the Act, provided that the contract of service is genuine and contains the essential components. ...

  [32]         He also considered that 45% of the unskilled labour cost related to the appellant and her ex-spouse ... This criterion applies if, at the time the property was acquired, the taxpayer had considered the possibility of selling the property for a profit if the long-term investment project could not be achieved for whatever reason ...

Rankin, and the changes in American tax law had a negative and unexpected impact on the business, no evidence was presented to show what profit the taxpayer might have earned had these events not occurred and whether the amount would have been considered substantial when compared to his professional income. ... However, section 31 of the Income Tax Act and the cases which have considered that section, apply a test which may, in some cases, seem to be unfair. ...