Search - considered

The case also considered whether that Court could hear and decide a constitutional issue when it had not been raised in the courts below by complying with the usual requirements of notice to the interested parties. ... After‑the-fact conduct does not require the inference to be drawn that this attitude was present at the time of signing the return at issue but it is a reasonable factor to be considered in the context of the requisite analysis of the entire evidence. ... Contrary to counsel for the appellant's submissions, the Judge's reasons demonstrate that he properly considered the appellant's background and circumstances. 6.         ...

As a result the Appellant now claims the extent to which the U of A Property [the Campus] was being used in commercial activities is 25.36%. [10] [25]         I will refer to the 25.36% as the “ Appellant’s Final Percentage ” and to the methodology used by the Appellant to determine the percentage as the “ Appellant’s Final Methodology ”. [26]         The Appellant does not accept the Minister’s treatment of the External Common Areas or the addition of an indexing factor. [27]         The parties provided in the PASF I the following general description of the methodology developed by the Respondent (the  “ Respondent’s Methodology ”): The Minister takes the position that the entirety of the U of A Property must be considered in calculating the extent of use in commercial activity.  ... If this argument were accepted, then all of the payroll department’s activities would be considered to have occurred in the course of the registrant’s commercial activity. ... The use of the word “raisonnables” in the French version of the provision supports this interpretation. [38] The use of a reasonableness requirement in tax legislation has been considered in other contexts. ...

They also considered that it will be necessary to get confirmation about the use Inc made of the US$16.5 million after it was received. … [53]   On September 4, 2004, there was another Litigation Committee meeting. ... Despite the joint nature of the damages, the evidence indicates that Inc. and Black considered that the damages were at least in part, if not wholly, Inc.’s responsibility. [115]   The evidence of all of the key individuals at Inc., including Black, White, and Walker, was that there was a loan agreement that bound Inc. to repay Black with interest. ... The testimonies of White and Walker were that Inc. considered itself morally responsible for the Joint Damages, and intended to repay them in full, but there was no agreement to the effect that Inc. was required to pay the Joint Damages entirely. ...

It involves first the proper construction of the Act ’s provisions supported by the evidence before the Court. [49]   If the Court is satisfied the avoidance transaction viewed within the context of the circumstances surrounding it frustrates the object, spirit or purpose of the provisions or the Act, then the avoidance transaction shall be considered abusive. ... The Court’s only role is to identify a relevant, clear and unambiguous policy, so that it may then determine whether the avoidance transactions in question are inconsistent with the policy, such that they constitute an abuse of the provisions of the Act, other than the GAAR, read as a whole. 98   I have no difficulty concluding that the general policy of the Income Tax Act is against the trading of non-capital losses by corporations, subject to specific limited circumstances. [53] [Emphasis added] [115]   Following OSFC Holdings, in Mathew, the SCC reaffirmed the existence of the general policy against loss trading: [49] The FCA considered other provisions of the Income Tax Act that address the transfer or sharing of losses between taxpayers. ... Subsection 256(5.1) was introduced in the 1988 Amending Legislation to prescribe certain circumstances in which a corporation will be considered to be “controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever” [57]. [127]   A number of provisions of the Act that had previously referred to de jure control were amended to refer to control “directly or indirectly in any manner whatever” (i.e., de facto control) [58]. ...

Matheson to inform himself whether there were investigations into these three Appellants that “this might be contemptuous”, that it was “shocking”, that I could not believe he was not directed by Justice to make those inquiries as part of his preparation, that it appears to taint his whole discovery and how can any of his answers be considered satisfactory, and that these appeals are now wholly jeopardised by how the Respondent chose to interpret my Order. [48] I said that the combined effect of restricting my disclosure Order and Mr. ... MacIver’s appeal, the FCA concluded that “Ultimately the importance of protecting the integrity of the judicial process outweigh all of the Appellant’s submissions”, that her dismissal power “should only be exercised when the violation of the rules are multiple, egregious and intentional”, and specifically noting “the Appellant’s lack of efforts in answering questions or fulfilling undertakings”. [77] In closing its reasons, the Court wrote it was satisfied “that the gravity of dismissing the Appellant’s appeal were duly considered by the motion judge who finally concluded that the Appellant’s deliberate pattern of conduct intended to frustrate the discovery process was likely to continue”. ... While these questions do not, given the circumstances, have to be considered and addressed in these five particular appeals, identifying these challenging questions here may preclude the Court having to address them in the future. [2] Counsel appearing on these matters has changed from time to time. ...

I must also observe that both Rixon and Bainard appear not to have considered the fact that, for example, 51 Dumbarton was constructed in 1992 but not sold until 1994 and 2 Hopwood was built in 1988 and sold in 1991. Neither appears to have considered whether or not housing prices had escalated (or otherwise) in the interim and took that fact into account if that were the case. ... He had, in preparation for the trial, been shown the plans and the list of desired features and considered the company’s quote to be appropri ate. ...

They rejected that offer, as it was insufficient to cover all of the debts that they had incurred in respect of the Property. [69] (8) Weighing of Factors [77] Many of the factors considered above are, in a sense, neutral, as they point in either direction (i.e., a personal residence or a profit-making adventure). ... B acknowledged that the first two statements were incorrect, and the Crown has acknowledged that the third statement was incorrect. [72] [81] Having carefully considered the evidence and having weighed the above factors, it is my view that the Vendors had a change of intention in 2014, whereupon they embarked upon an adventure in the nature of trade. ... Simonetta) was certain that the Vendors would not cooperate in providing the outstanding information called for in section D or in signing the Application. [97] I am not aware of any jurisprudence that has previously considered the question of what a new home purchaser should do when the vendor refuses to cooperate in submitting the rebate application form. ...

In varying the reassessments, the Minister determined that gains on real estate dispositions were to be considered on a capital account rather than on an income account. ... He can also succeed either by establishing, on a balance of probabilities, new facts, not considered by the Minister, showing that the unreported income was not taxable (for example, by proving he had received various gifts and loans), or by demonstrating that the Minister’s assumptions of fact are wrong. ... Upon the sale of the Telegram Mews Property, that amount was included in the calculation of outlays and expenses (see Exhibit R-1, Respondent’s Book of Documents, Tab 10, p. 46). [176] According to the Appellant, that amount should be considered an additional deduction on Schedule III (Calculation of Discrepancy in Total Income per Net Worth) in 2009. ...

Sommerfeldt Appearances: Counsel for the Appellants: Rod Vanier Counsel for the Respondent: Dina Elleithy JUDGMENT Having considered the evidence and the submissions presented by the parties, and in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment, it is adjudged that: The Appeals are allowed. ... The hiring of helpers factor and the responsibility for investment and management factor are neutral or inapplicable factors. [96] After having considered, weighed and balanced the above factors, I have concluded that, during the Relevant Period, Suresh worked as an independent contractor, and not as an employee. In other words, on balance, the factors considered in Sagaz and Wiebe Door are consistent with the mutual understanding that Suresh worked for Skylight as an independent contractor, and not as an employee. ...

As a result, the Appellant now claims the extent to which each U of C Property was being used in commercial activities is as follows: [14] Properties Extent of Use Child Development Centre 81.20% Main Campus 41.33% South Campus 25.86% [25]         I will refer to the methodology used by the Appellant to determine these percentages as the “ Appellant’s Final Methodology ” and the resulting percentages as the “ Appellant’s Final Percentages ”. [26]         The Appellant does not accept the Minister’s treatment of the External Common Areas or the addition of an indexing factor. [27]         The parties provided in the PASF I, the following general description of the methodology developed by the Respondent (the “ Respondent’s Methodology ”): The Minister takes the position that the entirety of each of the U of C Properties must be considered in calculating the extent of use in commercial activity. ... If this argument were accepted, then all of the payroll department’s activities would be considered to have occurred in the course of the registrant’s commercial activity. ... The use of the word “raisonnables” in the French version of the provision supports this interpretation. [38]  The use of a reasonableness requirement in tax legislation has been considered in other contexts. ...