Search - considered

In dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal considered about eight connecting factors and concluded that the taxpayer was engaged not in a business that was integral to the life of his reserve, but in a business that was in the commercial mainstream. [15] In Recalma et al. v. ...

It is the GMS arrangement alone which must be considered. Also, while the relationship between the plaintiff and Marlowe-Yeoman may have been created by contract, it was not an agency contract. ...

The fees they paid to the Company were calculated as follows: 7% to wages 9% to utilities 6% to maintenance 8% to charge cards (they were paid by cheque daily) 50% to products 20% to space rental [28] They considered the joint management operation as a sort of co-op. ...

Inniss can be considered to have been acting as an independent contractor on that basis. ...

Both denied the allegations. [14] I have considered the testimony of Noss and Scolaro, their relationship with the Appellant, their attitude, the manner in which they testified, as well as the probability of the facts they have sworn to and have concluded that where there is a conflict, I accept their testimony over that of the Appellant. ...

By questioning not the relevance or truth of the facts relied upon by the Minister but simply the weight to be attached to the various facts otherwise properly considered, the Tax Court Judge, in effect, overruled the Minister’s discretionary determination without first having concluded that the determination had been made in a manner contrary to law.... ...

Reasons for Judgment LAMARRE PROULX J.T.C.C. [1] The appellant is appealing a determination by the Minister of National Revenue ("the Minister") that the appellant’s employment during the period from January 1, 1994 to May 13, 1995 was not insurable within the meaning of s. 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act and that her employment during the period from May 1, 1996 to November 9, 1996 was also not insurable within the meaning of s. 5(2)(i) of the Employment Insurance Act ("the Act"). [2] At the start of the hearing the appellant and her counsel told the Court that the appellant was not disputing the Minister's decision for the period from January 1, 1994 to May 13, 1995 because, during that period, the appellant was living with the payer's sole shareholder, Claude Cloutier, but that she left him on March 26, 1996. [3] The facts on which the Minister relied in making his determination are set out in paragraph 8 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal ("the Reply") and are as follows: [TRANSLATION] (a) the payer was incorporated on May 28, 1987; (b) since the incorporation the payer's sole shareholder has been Claude Cloutier; (c) the payer operates a grocery store and in December 1995 it began renting video cassettes; (d) the appellant and the payer's sole shareholder were de facto spouses; (e) the appellant's working hours were not recorded by the payer; (f) no record was kept by the payer of the work done by the appellant; (g) the appellant's duties as described by the appellant and the payer were very vague and did not indicate that at any time the appellant had enough work to keep her busy full time; (h) the income of the business did not show any significant difference when the appellant was working part time from when she was working full time; (i) at no time did the appellant work full time; (j) the appellant was hired to perform the duties of a general clerk, that is arranging merchandise, placing orders, counter sales and other duties; (k) the appellant performed the same duties during the two periods in question; (l) it should be noted that when the appellant was hired she did not replace anyone and when she was laid off no one replaced her; (m) when she was laid off for the first time the appellant waited 11 months before filing her claim for unemployment insurance benefits; (n) when the appellant received the decision that she was not eligible in April 1996, she went back to work for the same payer in May 1996; (o) the reason for the layoffs was [TRANSLATION] "shortage of work", but this is not what the sales showed as they were increasing; (p) no significant increase in sales was shown when the appellant was hired full time and no appreciable decrease was noted when she was laid off and not replaced; (q) the appellant lived just above the business with the payer's sole shareholder, which made her movements easier as she came and went from the business as she thought fit; (r) the appellant and the payer are related persons within the meaning of the Income Tax Act; (s) if it is found that the appellant was not related to the payer at any time then it should be considered whether the appellant and the payer were de facto not dealing with each other at arm's length; (t) having regard to all the circumstances of the employment, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, it is not reasonable to conclude that the appellant and the payer would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment, if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length. [4] The appellant's grounds of appeal, as set out in her Notice of Appeal, are as follows: [TRANSLATION] 1. ...

Hogg’s examination that the off-season rentals cannot be considered as relevant to the assessment under appeal. ...

This subsection illustrates a style of legislative drafting that started with tax reform in 1972 in which the drafter of the Act considered it clever to reduce complex algebraic or mathematical formulae to a single page-long sentence. ...

A loan will not be considered to be made at a reasonable rate of interest where a shareholder borrows money at interest and loans that money to a corporation of which he is a shareholder, or to its subsidiary controlled corporation (subsidiary), at a lesser rate of interest than that at which the shareholder borrows the money. ...