Search - considered

Under s. 9(1), deductibility is ordinarily considered as it was by Thorson P. in Royal Trust, [Royal Trust Co. v. ...

Counsel for the appellant contended that the intention of the parties must be considered. ...

Correlatively, whether or not an otherwise deductible expense is reasonable in the circumstances is not to be assessed by reference to whether any one expense, or the collective expenses, are considered to be disproportionate to revenues. [21]          By identifying the portion of the property which reasonably relates to the tenancy, I have attempted objectively to act in a reasoned manner, looking at the actual living arrangements. ...

In effect, this question has been considered and, in my view, settled by the Associate Chief Judge Bowman in the case of Allcann Wood Suppliers Inc. v. ...

That matter is, however, not at all in issue. [32]          According to the appellant, the round trips between the two places of business were considered necessary and essential for the performance of his duties; he took no account of the fact that the place of business set up in the family residence was first and foremost his personal residence. ...

Arnold can claim any business expenses for 1996, before even he considered himself to be engaged in an adventure in the nature of trade. ...

., referring to the passage I have just quoted, said: [9]            I would like specifically to underscore the words of the Tax Court Judge, with which I fully agree, to the effect that this type of extreme remedy must not be considered to be an automatic one, being reserved only for cases of serious violations where other remedies are insufficient. [9]      From these authorities it is clear that issues as to the admissibility of evidence, and other remedies under section 24 of the Charter, should not be dealt with as interlocutory matters except in unusual circumstances. ...

The plaintiff was required, in order to carry out his duties as a plainclothes officer and receive a salary as such, to incur certain expenses regarding his clothing, and reimbursement of these expenses should not be considered as conferring a benefit under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act... ...

(hereinafter the "Corporation"); (ii)            the Corporation specializes in the sale of computers and security systems; (iii)           to make its products more accessible, the Corporation offers its potential buyers whose main source of income is employment the opportunity to become distributors so that they may be considered "self-employed workers" for tax purposes and thus enjoy numerous benefits; (iv)           among those benefits, the Corporation held out to its potential buyers the prospect of being able to claim a business loss and thus receive a sizeable income tax refund; (v)            the Corporation subsequently took it upon itself to prepare its distributors' returns of income and ensured that the business losses claimed generated a sufficient tax refund to cover the acquisition cost of the property, in this instance a microcomputer, in their so-called first year of operation; (vi)           the information prepared by Revenu Québec explained in detail the procedure used and showed that the losses claimed consisted in large part of fictitious expenses and that they could not be deductible in principle since the distributor's work was in fact non-existent; (vii)          in theory, the purpose of the distributor's licence was to authorize those individuals to sell the Corporation's computer products and its distribution licences in exchange for a commission on sales; (viii)         the Corporation also made it possible for an individual to enjoy no-interest financing through a financial institution for a period not exceeding one year; (ix)            on the appellant's invoice appeared the following notation by the Corporation: "Ordinateur Highway Inc. shall remain the owner of the property installed until full and final payment of the selling price, including administrative fees, even though the property is in the purchaser's possession"; (x)             this method of financing a computer purchase was called the "Highway Concept"; (xi)            an invoice bearing number 660 and describing the sale of a computer to the appellant by the Corporation, as well as a document entitled "Distributor's Contract", were antedated to December 22, 1997 (see Appendices A-1 and A-2); (xii)           an application form for a National Bank of Canada MasterCard was signed by the appellant on February 23, 1998 (see Appendix A-3); (xiii)          according to the MasterCard slip, the computer and distributor's licence were purchased in March 1998, and payment was deferred until July 3, 1998 (see Appendix A-4); (xiv)         the Highway Concept contract of purchase, including computer and services, was signed by the appellant on February 27, 1998 (seen Appendix A-5); (xv)          the appellant kept no books or records; (xvi)         the appellant was unable to provide relevant supporting documents justifying a number of expenses claimed; (xvii)        there is no indication that the appellant carried on any activity whatever related to the sale of computers or licences or took steps to start up a business activity in 1997; (xviii)       the appellant paid the sum of $1,200.00 to acquire a distributor's licence and the breakdown of the purchase price was as follows:                 Description                                                            Amount                 Licence vendor                                                              $500                 Vendor's sponsor                                                          $300                 Highway Corporation                                                 $400                 Total                                                                           $1,200 (xix)          at the time he acquired his distributor's licence, the appellant received a kit which included the following items: a video cassette, a binder containing information on the "Highway Concept" and ten or so personalized business cards; (e)            in light of the above, the Minister concluded that the appellant had not operated a business nor had he started up a business activity during the 1997 taxation year; (f)             the appellant knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, made or participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of, a false statement or omission in the income tax return filed for the taxation year in issue, as a result of which the tax he would have been required to pay based on the information provided in that return was $1,733.48 less than the amount of tax actually payable for that year; (g)            consequently, in the notice of reassessment of July 19, 1999, for the taxation year in issue, the Minister assessed the appellant a penalty of $866.74 under subsection 163(2) of the Act. ...

(hereinafter the "Corporation"); (ii)            the Corporation specializes in the sale of computers and security systems; (iii)           to make its products more accessible, the Corporation offers its potential buyers whose main source of income is employment the opportunity to become distributors so that they may be considered "self-employed workers" for tax purposes and thus enjoy numerous benefits; (iv)           among those benefits, the Corporation held out to its potential buyers the prospect of being able to claim a business loss and thus receive a sizeable income tax refund; (v)            the Corporation subsequently took it upon itself to prepare its distributors' returns of income and ensured that the business losses claimed generated a sufficient tax refund to cover the acquisition cost of the property, in this instance a microcomputer, in their so-called first year of operation; (vi)           the information prepared by Revenu Québec explained in detail the procedure used and showed that the losses claimed consisted in large part of fictitious expenses and that they could not be deductible in principle since the distributor's work was in fact non-existent; (vii)          in theory, the purpose of the distributor's licence was to authorize those individuals to sell the Corporation's computer products and its distribution licences in exchange for a commission on sales; (viii)         the Corporation also made it possible for an individual to enjoy no-interest financing through a financial institution for a period not exceeding one year; (ix)            on the appellant's invoice appeared the following notation by the Corporation: "Ordinateur Highway Inc. shall remain the owner of the property installed until full and final payment of the selling price, including administrative fees, even though the property is in the purchaser's possession"; (x)             this method of financing a computer purchase was called the "Highway Concept"; (xi)            the contract for the sale to the appellant by the Corporation of the licence and computer, as well as the document entitled "Distributor's Contract", were antedated to December 22, 1997; (xii)           an application form for a National Bank of Canada MasterCard was signed by the appellant on February 28, 1998; (xiii)          according to the MasterCard slip, the computer and distributor's licence were purchased on March 4, 1998, and payment was deferred until July 4, 1998 (see Appendix A); (xiv)         the appellant kept no books or records; (xv)          the T2124(97) form, "Statement of Business Activities", appended to the appellant's income tax return for the 1997 taxation year states that the appellant's fiscal year as a distributor was from January 1 to December 31, 1997; (xvi)         the appellant was unable to provide relevant supporting documents to justify a number of expenses claimed; (xvii)        there is no indication that the appellant carried on any activity whatever related to the sale of computers or licences or took steps to start up a business activity in 1997; (xviii)       the appellant paid the sum of $1,200.00, including sales taxes, to acquire a distributor's licence and the breakdown of the purchase price was as follows:                 Description                                                            Amount                 Licence vendor                                                              $500                 Vendor's sponsor                                                          $300                 Highway Corporation                                                 $400                 Total                                                                           $1,200 (xix)          at the time he acquired his distributor's licence, the appellant received a kit which included the following items: a video cassette, a binder containing information on the "Highway Concept" and ten or so personalized business cards; (e)            in light of the above, the Minister concluded that the appellant had not operated a business nor had he started up a business activity during the 1997 taxation year; (f)             the appellant knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, made or participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of, a false statement or omission in the income tax return filed for the taxation year in issue, as a result of which the tax he would have been required to pay based on the information provided in that return was $1,822.38 less than the amount of tax actually payable for that year; (g)            consequently, in the notice of reassessment of July 19, 1999, for the taxation year in issue, the Minister assessed the appellant a penalty of $911.19 under subsection 163(2) of the Act. ...