Search - considered

Having considered the submissions provided by each of the parties in all of the circumstances of this Appeal, I agree with the Respondent for the reasons that follow. [17]   In this case, it is clear that Yellow Point legally granted the Covenant on June 6, 2008. [6] As such, the Respondent argues that Yellow Point “ made ” the gift of the Covenant in 2008 and therefore could only claim a deduction in respect of the gift of the Covenant pursuant to paragraph 110.1(1)(d) of the Act in the Appellant’s 2008 to 2013 taxation years, which the Appellant did and the Minister allowed. ... [emphasis added] [21]   Paragraph 110.1(1)(d) as set out above, which was applicable to gifts made in 2008 and 2009, allows a corporation to claim a deduction in computing its taxable income in a taxation year if it meets the following criteria: (a) It must be in respect of a gift of land, including a covenant or easement to which the land is subject or, in the case of land in Quebec, a real servitude; (b) The fair market value of the gift must be certified by the federal Minister of the Environment; (c) The land must be certified by the federal Minister of the Environment (or by a designate) to be ecologically sensitive land; (d) The gift must have been made in the year or in any of the five preceding taxation years to a specified done set out in paragraph 110.1(1)(d); and (e) Pursuant to subsection 110.1(2), a corporation claiming a gift under paragraph 110.1(1)(d) must evidence the gift by filing with the Minister a receipt for the gift containing prescribed information and the two certificates provided by the Minister of the environment. [22]   I agree with the Respondent that each of these criteria must be considered separately based on the wording of the Act. ...

Legislative framework – Deposits and work-in-progress [63]   With respect to deposits, the relevant provisions are subsections 152(1), 168(1), 168(2), and 168(9), which read as follows: 152. (1) When consideration due – For the purposes of this Part, the consideration, or a part thereof, for a taxable supply, shall be deemed to become due on the earliest of (a) the earlier of the day the supplier first issues an invoice in respect of the supply for that consideration or part and the date of that invoice, (b) the day the supplier would have, but for an undue delay, issued an invoice in respect of the supply for that consideration or part, and (c) the day the recipient is required to pay that consideration or part to the supplier pursuant to an agreement in writing. 168. (1) General rule – Tax under this Division in respect of a taxable supply is payable by the recipient on the earlier of the day the consideration for the supply is paid and the day the consideration for the supply becomes due (2) Partial consideration – Notwithstanding subsection (1), where consideration for a taxable supply is paid or becomes due on more than one day, (a) tax under this Division in respect of the supply is payable on each day that is the earlier of the day a part of the consideration is paid and the day that part becomes due; and (b) the tax that is payable on each s u ch day shall be calculated on the value of the part of the consideration that is paid or becomes due, as the case may be, on that day. (9) Deposits – For the purposes of this section, a deposit (other than a deposit in respect of a covering or container in respect of which section 137 applies), whether refundable or not, given in respect of a supply shall not be considered as consideration paid for the supply unless and until the supplier applies the deposit as consideration for the supply. [64]   In other words, as stated by this Court in Tendances et Concepts Inc. v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 141 at paragraph 18: [18]   Subsection 168(9) of the Act specifies that a deposit, whether refundable or not, given in respect of a supply shall not be considered as consideration paid for the supply unless and until the supplier applies the deposit as consideration for the supply. ...

In other words, the accountant was suggesting that AFP was generally compliant in 2007 and 2008 in satisfying its withholding and remittance obligations and that the outstanding balances as at April 30, 2007 and April 30, 2008 would have been satisfied by AFP by May 15, 2007 and May 15, 2008 respectively. [27]   Having considered the evidence given by the CRA collections officer and having reviewed a historical representation of the remittances made by AFP, I am not convinced that AFP was consistently compliant in meeting its remittance obligations. ... The financial contributions by Robert and James to AFP “must be considered in the context of the care, diligence and skill defence.” [31] However, most, if not all, of those contributions were used by AFP to pay debts other than those owed to the tax authorities. [38]   The evidence presented at the hearing by Robert Ambs and James Ambs focused on their efforts to satisfy AFP’s creditors, particularly the local trade creditors, after AbitibiBowater surrendered its logging licence in 2008 and after AFP lost the road-maintenance contract in 2009. ...

The parties agreed on the contents of the record that would be considered by another judge. ... We’re doing fiscal 2012 so we claimed the deduction. [6] [24]   Management considered whether to make the adjustments to the financial statements for each of its 2010 and 2011 fiscal years, but concluded that it would take more time than it was worth to track the year in which each of the goods was sold. ...

It may be considered as further corroboration that over the 15-month period, and notwithstanding many attempts by Mr. ... Markou was then in a state of bankruptcy and had felt badly about his personal and financial treatment of the appellant a few months prior to the event must be considered. ...

Finally, in Tétreault-Gadoury, a more recent judgment, rendered on September 23, 1988 (4.02(5)), the Federal Court of Appeal considered the application of section 15 to a decision of the board of referees concerning section 31 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, stating inter alia at 10: Similarly, if an administrative tribunal has jurisdiction under its enabling Act to rule on a question of law, it does not lose that jurisdiction because the question of law to be decided involves considerations which call for applying a provision of the Charter. ... Certain differences arising from the differences between the Charter and the Human Rights Acts must, however, be considered. ...

The carry-over deposit, according to the uncontradicted evidence, was not applicable to all goods on the same terms and was not considered to be part of the purchase price. ... This passage from George Smith Trucking Co., supra, appears to bear out this position: In the end all the circumstances, including the withheld documents, the other documents, and the conduct of the parties, must be considered. ...

By 1977, the defendant considered that his farming activities had increased to such an extent that he could claim full farming losses rather than the restricted annual loss of $5,000. ... M.N.R., supra, at page 288 (D.T.C. 5155): Start-up costs, contrary to what the trial judge said, cannot be considered as the basis for an alternative ground of decision. ...

Counsel for the respondent set out for the Court the factors which he considered should be taken into account in the determination of the issue. ... I do not say such a result was intended by the drafters of the Act or that they considered it would arise, I merely note that it was not shown to me that such a result was illegal or that it could not arise out of the words in the Act. ...

In that report, he considered ten comparable sales and selected four as being the best value indicators. ... I considered both alternatives and decided that it was better to use the average adjusted price of Messrs. ...