Search - considered

It appears to me that the appellant and his advisors now wish to utilize the protection they see in section 74 of the Act— saying in effect that the income from the original 1,000 shares must be considered for income tax purposes as if they remained the property of Mrs. ... If both shares and non-share consideration are received (that is cash and debt), the nonshare consideration will take on a tax cost equal to its fair value at the time of the transfer.- It is important to note that, since the accrued gain on the transferred property is built into the shares received by the transferor with no corresponding adjustment to the cost base for the property acquired by the transferee corporation, an element of double taxation can result; once on the disposition of the asset by the transferee corporation and again on the disposition of the shares by the transferor.- The above comments are intended as a summary of some of the limitations to section 85 and some of the traps to be considered; this summary, however, is by no means exhaustive. ...

In reassessing, the respondent considered the premises to be a trading asset and that this precluded the claim for capital cost allowance and liability to tax on the profit arising out of the sale on the basis of a capital gain. ... By virtue of this definition, a single operation is to be considered as a business although it is an isolated venture entirely unconnected with the taxpayer's profession or occupation. ...

However it may be deduced from Matthews, supra, (and I take the argument of counsel to touch on this point) that the portions of Matthews, supra, to be considered when reviewing Moldowan, supra, were to be found on pages 234 through 236 (D.T.C. 6196 through 6197) (including the financial schedules): The plaintiff did not suggest that the capital cost allowance claimed was not expressly permitted. ... In both situations, even though the Federal Court judgment of Gorjup, supra, was considered the underlying facts did not support the appellant's contentions and the appeals were dismissed. ...

As I see it, even in 1987, certainly in 1978, and most definitely in 1971, to consider or have considered the prospect of some kind of industrial development, in the immediately foreseeable future, virtually over the entire 220 or 240 acres of land involved would be totally unsupportable. ... I need express no views on that opinion of his, other than to point out that in an appraisal question such as this one, existing regulations should be considered seriously in this Court, barring clear and decisive evidence (not just opinion) that they are of no value. ...

Hooey compared operating results for the three years 1970, 1971 and 1972 — including adjustments to them he considered necessary — and arrived at an average maintainable earnings of $311,000, which he multiplied by a “capitalization rate” of 12-13 times, selected a mid-point value of $3.8 million for the business which he then used in allocating earnings to different aspects of the operation — “milk quota", “trucking licenses" and “fixed assets". ... The subject, Canadian Cabinets and Furniture was not considered a “viable” business in 1971. ...

Despite the fact that partnerships must be considered as separate persons in the computation of their incomes or their losses, they are not taxpayers. ... On the other hand, the same counsel contends that the purchase of the head of cattle must not be considered as an investment because they form part of the inventory. ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer's training, the taxpayer's intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... Here there are only two sources to be considered: farming and administration (since I am ignoring rental for the reasons given above). ...

Why, if the appellant considered that he was selling the property to Melcher, he would be concerned about the existence in it of a poolroom was not explained. ... If, subsequent to the disposition of this appeal, what is contained in Exhibit A-3 is considered relevant the parties should reexamine it because what is said therein is riddled with mathematical error. ...

The whole of what transpired may properly be considered. In this regard reference is made to Re Rispin (1912), 25 OLR 633 per Garrow, JA at 642. ... Certain provisions of the BCA must be considered with respect to this submission, namely, section 16 (now section 15); subsections 39(2), (3), (4) and (5) as amended by Statutes of Ontario 1972, c 138, s 13 (now section 37); paragraph 42(a) as amended by Statutes of Ontario 1972, c 138, s 14 (now section 40) and section 135 (now section 133). 16. (1) No act of a corporation and no transfer of real or personal property to or by a corporation, otherwise lawful, that is heretofore or hereafter done or made, is invalid by reason of the fact that the corporation was without capacity or power to do such act or make or receive such transfer, but such lack of capacity or power may be asserted, (a) in a proceeding against the corporation by a shareholder under subsection 2; (b) in a proceeding by the corporation, whether acting directly or through a receiver, liquidator, trustee or other legal representative or through shareholders in a representative capacity, against a director or officer or former director or officer of the corporation; or (c) as cause for the cancellation of the certificate of incorporation of the corporation under section 250. (2) A shareholder of a corporation may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order to restrain the corporation from doing any act or transferring or receiving the transfer of real or personal property on the ground that the corporation lacks capacity or power for the purpose, and the court may, if it considers it to be just and equitable, grant an order prohibiting the corporation from doing the act or transferring or receiving the transfer of the real or personal property, but, where the act or transfer sought to be restrained or prohibited is being or to be done or made under a contract to which the corporation is a party, (a) all the parties to the contract shall be parties to the proceeding; (b) the court in granting the order may set aside the contract and allow the corporation or other parties to the contract, as the case may be, such compensation as may be equitable for the loss or damage sustained by any of them from the granting of the order and setting aside of the contract, other than anticipated profits from the contract. 39. (2) Where authorized in its articles and subject to any restrictions contained therein, a corporation may purchase any of its issued common shares. (3) A corporation shall not purchase shares under this section if the corporation is insolvent or if the purchase would render the corporation insolvent. (4) No purchase of shares shall be made under this section by a corporation unless the purchase is authorized by a resolution of the board of directors. (5) Where a corporation purchases shares under subsection (2), the purchase shall be made at the lowest price at which, in the opinion of the directors, such shares are obtainable, and, (a) pursuant to tenders received by the corporation upon request for tenders addressed to all the holders of the shares of the class and the corporation shall accept only the lowest tenders; or (b) from bona fide full-time employees and former employees of the corporation; or (c) where the shares to be purchased are of a body corporate that is offering its shares to the public, by purchase on the open market. 42. ...

After having considered them, I have decided that the success of these appeals should be decided only on the basis of the evidence introduced before me at the hearing. ... Here, he considered the rental position presented by Mr. Stein. He assumed that Mr. ...