Search - considered

He referred to regulation 7306 of the Income Tax Regulations as evidence that the Minister considered $0.53 / km for the first 5,000 km and $0.47 / km thereafter to be a reasonable rate in 2012. ...

How the ultimate amount of the vehicle allowance is reconciled is not considered within the operative sections. ...

However a waiver cannot be withdrawn if it is too late or if the withdrawal would result in an injustice to the promisee. [15]          The first issue to be considered is whether or not a Waiver requires consideration. ...

He stated: 43... the law will impute knowledge to a taxpayer who, in circumstances that dictate or strongly suggest that an inquiry should be made with respect to his or her tax situation, refuses or fails to commence such an inquiry without proper justification. [27]      It has been held that in drawing the line between “ordinary” negligence or neglect and “gross” negligence, a number of factors have to be considered: (a)        the magnitude of the omission in relation to the income declared, (b)        the opportunity the taxpayer had to detect the error, (c)        the taxpayer’s education and apparent intelligence, (d)        genuine effort to comply. ...

Consequently, it cannot have conferred a benefit on him because he is the one who confers legitimacy on Gexco as a general contractor, in the construction market. [32]   The appellant also argues that the use of Gexco’s workers in the construction of his residence is not relevant in determining whether he received a benefit. [33]   It should first be noted that the appellant’s experience and skills, which are not in dispute, must be distinguished from what constitutes a benefit within the meaning of the Act. [34]   The appellant admits that the residence was built for personal purposes, but that Gexco was involved for purely practical reasons. [35]   However, as it was expressly shown in Gexco’s books, the accounting treatment applied to the construction of his residence was considered [TRANSLATION] “income from contracts” and no management fees were calculated and no profit was recorded. [36]   In addition, it was shown that Gexco’s profit margin in relation to all of its other construction projects was at least 8.09%. [37]   Shareholder benefits were at issue in Park Haven Designs Inc. v. ...

None of the travel arrangements for which invoices were attached to the Affidavit of Olinda Samuel, could be considered lavish expenses. (2) Costs Relating to Transcripts and Printing [31]   Finally, the disbursement costs, claimed for transcripts covering the several hearing dates and the printing and reproduction of various documents relating to the proceedings, are reasonable and were supported by invoices attached to the Affidavit of Olinda Samuel. ...

ANALYSIS [23]   The relevant portions of the provisions of the Act applicable in this appeal are as follows: 55 (2)  Where a corporation resident in Canada has received a taxable dividend in respect of which it is entitled to a deduction under subsection 112(1) or 112(2) or 138(6) as part of a transaction or event or a series of transactions or events, one of the purposes of which (or, in the case of a dividend under subsection 84(3), one of the results of which) was to effect a significant reduction in the portion of the capital gain that, but for the dividend, would have been realized on a disposition at fair market value of any share of capital stock immediately before the dividend and that could reasonably be considered to be attributable to anything other than income earned or realized by any corporation after 1971 and before the safe-income determination time for the transaction, event or series, notwithstanding any other section of this Act, the amount of the dividend (other than the portion of it, if any, subject to tax under Part IV that is not refunded as a consequence of the payment of a dividend to a corporation where the payment is part of the series) (a)  shall be deemed not to be a dividend received by the corporation; (b)  where a corporation has disposed of the share, shall be deemed to be proceeds of disposition of the share except to the extent that it is otherwise included in computing such proceeds; and (c)  where a corporation has not disposed of the share, shall be deemed to be a gain of the corporation for the year in which the dividend was received from the disposition of a capital property. 55(5)  For the purposes of this section, (c)  the income earned or realized by a corporation for a period throughout which it was a private corporation is deemed to be its income for the period otherwise determined on the assumption that no amounts were deductible by the corporation under section 37.1 of this Act, as that section applies for taxation years that ended before 1995, or paragraph 20(1)(gg) of the  Income Tax Act, chapter 148 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952; [24]   Subsection 55(2) of the Act does not have as a purpose to tax intercorporate dividends. ...

He also argued that the expenses for work done to the units while they were vacant were deductible because the units   were still considered property for the purpose of earning income during those periods. ...

Paragraph 147(3)(d) contemplates that the circumstances, respecting a written offer of settlement, will be considered in an award of costs particularly when considering enhanced costs pursuant to a lump sum award. e)   Value of Work [24]   There were five witnesses in total with an expert qualified for each party. ...

He also considered the intention of Parliament noting that: [15]   (…) The issue in this appeal is whether the consecutive courses, with a duration of more than 13 consecutive weeks, is sufficient to allow the amount paid for these courses to be included as tuition for the purposes of paragraph 118.5(1)(b) of the Act when the courses, on an individual basis, were less than 13 consecutive weeks in duration. (…) [21]   For the purposes of the tuition credit the fees are determined "in respect of the year". ...