Search - considered

As noted in Royal Winnipeg Ballet at para. 64, the relevant factors must be considered “in the light of” the parties’ intent. ... Given that limited evidence of the intent of the two workers, given the absence of any assumption as to what status they considered themselves to have, and given that there is no evidence to suggest that they disputed the failure to withhold income tax, employment insurance premiums or Canada Pension Plan premiums, I conclude that Mr. ...

I considered whether there was a privilege with respect to this offer. ... Canada, 2006 FCA 224, Justice Nadon stated as follows: 43          ... the law will impute knowledge to a taxpayer who, in circumstances that dictate or strongly suggest that an inquiry should be made with respect to his or her tax situation, refuses or fails to commence such an inquiry without proper justification. [49] I considered the comments from Justice Sharlow in Tossell v. ...

(F.C.A.) [2] the Federal Court of Appeal had similarly said the traditional Sagaz/Wiebe Door factors must be considered “in the light of the parties’ intent ...   [54]         Given especially the extent of Loving Home Care’s rights to direct the performance of the work duties and its actual monitoring and reporting requirement practices, and given the very limited financial risks to the workers, the absence of any financial investment by the workers, and the relatively fixed financial rewards by which they can only generate more income by working additional hours or days, these particular facts and circumstances considered as a whole quite strongly give rise to insurable employment under the EIA and pensionable employment under the CPP ...

The Law   [14]         The judicial test for determining the issue of whether a worker is in a contract of services and hence an employee, or in a contract for services and hence an independent contractor, was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. ... Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.), 2006 FCA 87, 2006 DTC 6323 (F.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that the intention of the parties was a factor to be considered, and agreed with Sagaz and Wiebe Door above that the label the parties ascribe to the relationship is not determinative of it. ...

  [25]         Having considered all the evidence on file, I find that the Minister is justified in concluding that Canada Inc. is a tax offender and is likely a provider of invoices of convenience. ... They can succeed in this purpose only if the requirements are considered mandatory and are strictly enforced. ...

Turcott indicated that the SR&ED expenses were disallowed because he considered that the information gathered did not make it possible for him to determine whether the appellant’s activities were SR&ED within the meaning of section 248 of the Act. ... Agencies. [16] [81]   Circular 86-4R3, which was first replaced by the circular dated December 19, 2012, and then by the circular dated April 24, 2015, has always been considered to be “a generally useful and reliable guide” given that that policy was the result of extensive consultations between the government and the scientific community in industry as well as at universities. [82]   In order to determine whether the appellant’s project in relation to the mandrel during the 2012 and 2013 taxation years was an SR&ED activity, the five questions above must be analyzed in light of the facts of this case. (1) Was there any scientific or technological uncertainty? ...

For example, he can succeed either by establishing on a balance of probabilities new facts not considered by the Minister showing that he did not earn the alleged unreported income, or by demonstrating that the Minister’s assumptions of fact are wrong. ... While the translated name of these documents is the informal “IOU”, they appear to be fully considered and properly set out loan agreement documents. ...

Having considered all the evidence and the case law, I am not persuaded that the work in issue involved technological risk or uncertainty that could not be removed by standard procedures or routine engineering. [40]          This conclusion applies with equal force in the present appeal. [41]          Furthermore, I am also not convinced by Mr. ... 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. ...

Therefore, its business would be considered a specified investment business, unless one of the exceptions in the definition of that term applies. [69]          Since the Appellant did not directly employ more than five full-time employees in any of the relevant taxation years, the only exception that could apply is found in paragraph (b) of the definition of “specified investment business”. ... The salary of the building managers was set on the basis of 40 hours of work per week at minimum wage, and while the hours were flexible, where the job was performed by one individual, the manager was required to work the regular number of working hours each week that is considered full-time. ...

For income tax purposes, the jurisprudence has established that “a gift is a voluntary transfer of property owned by a donor to a donee, in return for which no benefit or consideration flows to the donor.” [19] Tax advantages received from a gift, however, is not normally considered a “benefit” that would vitiate the gift because doing so means charitable donations deductions would be unavailable to donors. [50]   Accordingly, there must be: (1) a voluntary transfer of property by the donor; (2) the donor owned the property immediately prior to the transfer; and (3) the donor did not receive a non-tax benefit from the donation. [51]   Subsequently, the Federal Court of Appeal clarified the third requirement in Friedberg, that anticipation of or expectation of a material benefit by the donor is sufficient to vitiate an otherwise valid gift. [20] The third no-benefit requirement is also expressed as whether the donor had donative intent at the time the donor made the gift. [21] Accordingly, the issue in this appeal is whether the appellant had the donative intent when he made the Payments to Global. ... Gross negligence connotes a much greater degree of negligence amounting to reprehensible recklessness.” [33] [69]   The appellant’s claim for the Deduction in his tax return must have been tantamount to intentional acting and rise to the level of reprehensible recklessness. [70]   Personal circumstances of a taxpayer must be considered in determining gross negligence penalties including the magnitude of the misstatement in the tax return, the taxpayer’s opportunity to detect the misstatement, and the taxpayer’s expected understanding of basic taxation principles given her or his education and apparent intelligence. [34] [71]   In 2000 and 2001, the appellant was employed as a driver delivering meat products. ...