Search - considered

(b) such portion of each outlay or expenses made or incurred as would, but for paragraph (a), have been deductible in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year shall be deductible in computing his income for the subsequent year to which it can reasonably be considered to relate;.... 245. (1) In computing income for the purpose of this Act, no deduction may be made in respect of a disbursement or expense made or incurred in respect of a transaction or operation that, if allowed, would unduly or artificially reduce the income. ...

The quarrel arises, as I see it, from the view that the Minister, in the determination of that interest, considered that not just the normal instalment was required on May 31, 1978, but the balance of the tax payable was due on that date. ...

., and expressed by Lord Shelborne in Re Sherry, 25 Ch.D. 702, in somewhat similar language: “It has been considered a general rule since Clayton’s case that when a debtor makes a payment he may appropriate it to any debt he pleases and the creditor must apply it accordingly. ...

The income tax assessments against which Mr Wolfin (“Wolfm”) appealed were for the years 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978, in which the Minister of National Revenue considered certain gains as on income, not on capital account. ...

The payments from the loggers represented income from the property, and was properly considered part of the appellant’s income in that he retained ownership of the land. ...

It was the appellant’s oral testimony that he had always considered himself to be the sole beneficial owner of a 12/2 per cent interest in the MURB Joint Venture, that he thought only an individual could take advantage of any MURB tax write-offs, that he had paid for it out of his own resources, that Russ-Mar was always intended to be merely a cost control vehicle and that, of the documents he had signed purportedly on behalf of Russ-Mar, he did not read them carefully, if at all, and that at the particular times he would sign under the company name because to him Russ-Mar was merely the “terminology” used to express the overall interest of his group. ...

One might pick from section 3 just the following: (a) determine the aggregate of amounts each of which is the taxpayer’s income — from a source — and from subsection 4(1) (a) — and was allowed no deduction in computing his income for the taxation year except such deductions as may reasonably be regarded as wholly applicable to that source — and from subsection 4(3) — all deductions allowed in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year — shall be deem to be applicable either wholly or in part to a particular source — [Emphasis added] The appellant did not show that the “farming” operation in question should not be considered a “source”, and therefore the appeal must fail. ...

(c) “Place of business” generally is considered to have reference to a permanent establishment of the employer such as an office, factory, warehouse, branch or store, and also to a field office at a large construction job. ...

The Appellant submits the following reasons in support of the submission that this disposition gives rise to a capital gains treatment in his hands; (1) His activities with respect to the farm land and the accompanying mining rights have been consistent with that of an investor and not a trader of land or mining rights; (2) The sale to Sandco cannot reasonably be considered to be either a lease giving rise to ordinary income (royalty or rental payments) nor payments which could be subject to the provisions of paragraph 12(l)(g) of the Income Tax Act; the thrust of paragraph 12(l)(g) is to treat, as ordinary income, payments made in respect of the sale of property where the payments to be made on the balance of the sale are dependent on the production or use to which the Purchaser puts the property. ...

(d) The witness attempted to bring about a reconciliation after he saw how Mr Va- lade’s desire to retire from business in 1978 was followed by what Mr Valade considered an unattractive offer by the appellant to purchase the business and their subsequent falling out followed by Mr Valade’s notices (A-4 to A-5) to the appellant. ...