Search - considered

The report was filed as Exhibit I-4. [10]     In her experience as an auditor, she said she had not noted any difference in percentages of taxable and non-taxable sales at convenience stores from 1989 to the present. [11]     In cross-examination, the witness said she had considered all the invoices for purchases in the survey months. ... Lepage nevertheless continued his testimony on the first report, explaining in what way he thought the three months considered by the auditor were not representative. ... Perhaps the history of the convenience store should have been considered, but Mr. ...

Furthermore, it is submitted that, pursuant to sections 169 and 174 of the Act, the Appellant is only entitled to claim an input tax credit for the Mileage Allowances paid to the Employees for the use of his or her motor vehicle in Canada in relation to the Appellant's commercial activities where: (a)         the Appellant was entitled under the provisions of the Income Tax Act to deduct an amount in respect of the Mileage Allowances paid to the Employees in computing its income for the 1999 or 2000 taxation years; (b)         the Mileage Allowance paid to the Employees was a reasonable allowance for the purposes of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), (vi), (vii) or (vii.1) of the Income Tax Act, and (c)         the Appellant considered, at the time the allowance was paid, that the allowance would be a reasonable allowance for those purposes and it is reasonable for the Appellant to have considered, at that time, that the allowance would be a reasonable allowance for those purposes. 12.        ... (v)        the use in Canada, in relation to activities engaged in by the person, of a motor vehicle, (b)         an amount in respect of the allowance is deductible in computing the income of the person for a taxation year of the person for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, or would have been so deductible if the person were a taxpayer under that Act and the activity were a business, and (c)        in the case of an allowance to which subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), (vi), (vii) or (vii.1) of that Act would apply (i)         if the allowance were a reasonable allowance for the purposes of that subparagraph, and (ii)        where the person is a partnership and the allowance is paid to a member of the partnership, if the member were an employee of the partnership, or, where the person is a charity or a public institution and the allowance is paid to a volunteer, if the volunteer were an employee of the charity or institution, the person considered, at the time the allowance was paid, that the allowance would be a reasonable allowance for those purposes and it is reasonable for the person to have considered, at that time, that the allowance would be a reasonable allowance for those purposes, the following rules apply: (d)        the person is deemed to have received a supply of the property or service, (e)        any consumption or use of the property or service by the employee, member or volunteer is deemed to be consumption or use by the person and not by the employee, member or volunteer, and (f)        the person is deemed to have paid, at the time the allowance is paid, tax in respect of the supply equal to the amount determined by the formula A x B where A         is the amount of the allowance, and B          is (i)         15/115 where (A)       all or substantially all of the supplies for which the allowance is paid were made in participating provinces, or (B)       the allowance is paid for the use of the motor vehicle in participating provinces, and (ii)        in any other case, 7/107. [8]      The relevant portions of subsection 6(1) of the Income Tax Act read as follows: 6(1) Amounts to be included as income from office or employment (1) There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from an office or employment such of the following amounts as are applicable:... ...

Sanat Mukherjee, a neurologist, he determined that should his symptoms continue, a diagnosis of MS could be considered. ... Totten argued most eloquently and passionately about his eligibility for these expenses to be considered medical expenses. ... If he could access a property or be mobile or functional within the dwelling without those costs, then they should not be considered incremental costs. ...

In overturning this decision of MacLatchy D.T.C.J. the Federal Court of Appeal at [2003] FCA 132 stated: Having carefully considered the submissions of counsel and the reasons for the decision of the Tax Court Judge, we are all of the view that the Tax Court Judge erred in law in reaching his conclusion. ... (f) The only persons who submitted hours or kept track of hours were the workers in the workshop, not those in the office. [12]     On the threshold question and applying the criteria of the new approach analyzed above I am satisfied that I am entitled to review the Minister's decision and make my own. [13]     Having considered all the facts established in the Partial Statement of Agreed Facts and revealed by the testimony I conclude as follows: 1.      The factor of not being paid for 5 months is not, when considered in the light of all the other factors (the whole picture) sufficient to lead to a conclusion that the employment relationship was unreasonable. ...

" Put another way, are his services to be considered as an integral part of a business carried on by the payor. ... I was-- at that time, you know, I just wrote something that come to my head and I was, I guess you could say, angry, shocked, and when I wrote that, I wasn't thinking properly and-- HIS HONOUR:            Because what I cannot understand is if you considered yourself a contractor-- MR. ... Subject to the foregoing there is very little evidence directly on the issue of risk of loss and the comments with respect to chance of profit are to be considered as embracing both concepts. [13]     Another test developed by the jurisprudence and referred to therein as a test separate from the four tests discussed above is that of integration. ...

Lauzon said she had not considered the kilometrage for personal purposes established by Mr. ... Those trips cannot be considered in any case as travel for personal purposes. ... While it is true that an individual's trips between his residence and customary place of work are usually considered as being of a personal nature, rather than travel in connection with or in the course of an office or employment or for the purpose of earning business income, this is not a rule to which there are no exceptions. [23]     Where it is established that different duties of an individual are performed at two different locations, one of which is located in the personal residence, it is harder to conclude that the travelling between the two locations must be considered as personal in nature. ...

Having analyzed that report and considered the testimony of its author and all of the evidence, the Court must conclude that the appellants were not employees of La Crevette du Nord Atlantique Inc., since the work they did meets none of the four tests by which the conditions of employment are evaluated, namely: control, ownership of the tools, chance of profit or risk of loss and integration. [11]     Moreover, the evidence of the Minister established that the appellants did not meet the definition of "fisher" in the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations. ... Thus, according to this communiqué, a person will be considered a self-employed fisher: a)          if he/sheparticipates in making a catch, b)          if he/she is not fishing for his/her own or another person's sport, and c)          if he/she meets at least one of the following conditions: i)                     has ownership or leases the boat used to make the catch, or ii)                    has ownership or leases specialized fishing gear (not including hand tools or clothing) used to make the catch, or iii)                  is the holder of a Species License issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, necessary to make the catch, or iv)                  has a right of ownership to all or part of the proceeds from the sale of the catch and has a financial responsibility for all or part of the expenses incurred in making the catch. [13]     Jacques Huet was the captain of the company's vessel and participated in making the catches. ... He therefore could not be considered as an "insured person" within the meaning of section 2 of those Regulations. [20]     It has been established that 9000-9580 Québec Inc. was the owner of all the proceeds from the sale of its catches and was financially responsible for all expenses related to the vessel and incurred in making the catches. [21]     Communiqué CE-98-18 deals with the status of a person who engages in fishing and who is at the same time an employee of a corporation. [22]     Thus, a fisher who holds a commercial fishing licence may enter into a contract of employment with a corporation, of which he may be a shareholder, or with another individual. ...

On appeal of an assessment disallowing his exemption from tax, this Court considered the five above described connecting factors and found none of them helpful in connecting the Appellant's employment income to a reserve. ... The Queen (1998) 152 F.T.R. 28, Rothstein, J.A. considered the composition of the Appellant's clients in applying the connecting factors test. ... The cases such as Southwind suggest that where a business caters to Indians and non-Indian customers alike, this is an indication it is a commercial mainstream business which would tend to be a factor that discounts the property in question from being considered as situated on the reserve. ...

The significance of intention as one of the factors to be considered was emphasized by the Supreme Court of Canada in Friesen v. ... In that case Major J. summarized certain important factors to be considered in determining whether a transaction in real estate is an adventure in the nature of trade. ... The more closely a taxpayer's business or occupation is related to real estate transactions, the more likely it is that the income will be considered business income rather than capital gain. ...

He conceded that there was no obligation placed upon the recipients of the so-called "allowance" to actually purchase another home in order to qualify, but he had in fact purchased a residence and he maintained that the amount in question could not be considered an allowance as the taxpayer had, as anticipated, increased mortgage costs. ... I do not believe that the reason given by Rouleau, J. in the excerpt quoted above was the determining argument in McNeill, for two reasons: a) another allowance paid under the same agreement was considered an employment benefit within the meaning of section 16(1)(a) of the Act because of "the absence of any proof put forward by the plaintiff to show that he actually suffered other losses due to his relocation equal to the [amount] he received [...] ... In light of the decision rendered in McNeill, I am of the opinion that the amount received by the appellant for expenses related to his move should not be considered as an allowance within the meaning of section 6(1)(b) because the appellant actually incurred expenses related to his move for the amounts received. ...