Search - considered

Accordingly, for purposes of this appeal, the Application is to be considered filed with the CRA on the date that it was mailed. ...

If so, then subsection 175(1) will deem the appellants to have both directly received/used/consumed the supplies and paid the GST/HST, which would in turn be non-creditable tax charged and used to calculate the rebate. [27] The Federal Court of Appeal addressed this issue definitively in Westcoast Energy Inc. [16], the only notable difference being that in Westcoast Energy, the appellant sought to use the deeming effect of subsection 175(1) as a basis for claiming input tax credits rather than the public service body rebate. [17] The health benefits in question were the same as here (acupuncture, massage therapy, naturopathy, and homeopathy) and employees were reimbursed for these services under a self-funded health plan. [18] [28] Importantly, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the applicability of its reasoning in ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. [19] with respect to section 174 to the question involving section 175 in Westcoast Energy, and said the following: [6] In ExxonMobil, this Court held (at para. 50), albeit under section 174 of the Act – not the relevant section here, section 175 – that “property or services which are intended by the employer for the exclusive personal use of the employees and which lend themselves to such a use bear no relationship with the employer’s activities”. ...

The issues to be decided are: whether the Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the Minister’s decision to deny a downward adjustment under s. 247(10) of the Act; if so, whether the appellant’s income from the Transactions in the Appeal Period should be reduced to reflect…. [11] An appeal to the Tax Court for a downward adjustment was also considered by the Supreme Court in Dow. [12] In Dow, Justice Kasirer wrote the following for the majority of the Supreme Court: 7. ...

Investments Limited (the "Corporation"), pursuant to subsection 23(1) of The Business Corporations Act by their signatures hereby consent to the following resolution: Whereas the Corporation declared a management bonus in the amount of $147,000.00 payable to Samuel Frustaglio on December 27th, 1978, which was to be payable at such time or times as the Corporation had funds available for this purpose as determined by the President of the Corporation; And Whereas the funds have not been available for the payment of the aforesaid management bonus and it is in the interest of the Corporation that the aforesaid management bonus be considered cancelled; BE IT RESOLVED THAT: (a) The management bonus declared payable to Samuel Frustaglio in the amount of $147,000.00 on December 27th, 1978 be deemed cancelled; (b) The Secretary of the Corporation take whatever action necessary to reflect the aforesaid in the books and records of the Corporation. ...

Analysis Paragraph 78(I)(a) Recently the Supreme Court of Canada again considered the proper interpretation of taxing provisions in the light of the basic structure of the Canadian taxation scheme which is established in the Act (Friesen v. ... Many provisions of the Act have not been considered by the courts. Certainly, fact situations vary with each transaction and where a court has interpreted a provision with respect to a set of facts, that interpretation may not necessarily apply to totally different facts in another transaction. ...

Wortzman's eloquent and elaborate argument can overcome the fundamental flaw; that is, that to be considered an acceptable system of accounting for Canadian tax purposes it must meet the underlying fundamental criteria of accuracy in computing income. ... Bernick was premised on the UK Bond being considered a long‑term investment. ...

In her submission, there are three causes for this: [71]     (a)   the GST and QST in the amount of $534.71, which should not be included in the cost;   (b)   the three expenses (the first three lines of Appendix I of the Replies, which total $654.86), which she claims were not completely devoted to SR&ED and should therefore not be considered capital expenditures made for the purpose of SR&ED; and   (c)   the addition of $554.94 to the capital expenditures (the current expense claims which the Minister alleges are capital in nature) ... See Exhibit A-1, tab 2, page 61, with respect to the lab equipment. [52] The amount allowed for GST and QST is rateably reduced to reflect the fact that no GST or QST was paid on the amounts payable to the SAAQ. [53] The amounts of $457.07 and $2,258.23 do not include GST and QST. [54] Exhibit I-2, in the middle of page 2. [55] Ibid., page 2. [56] Ibid., pages 2-3. [57] Ibid., page 3. [58] Transcript, page 265. [59] Exhibit I-2, page 3. [60] Ibid., page 3 (not including GST or QST). [61] Exhibit A-1, tab 2, page 60, [Translation] “Contract of Lease”. [62] Transcript, pages 268-269. [63] See below. [64] There was no GST or QST on this amount. [65] Subparagraph 37(8)(d)(ii) of the ITA applies, and, consequently, the amount of $2,066.24 cannot be considered an SR&ED expense and cannot be deducted as an expense during the year in issue. [66] See note 41, above. [67] Moreover, one would have to consider whether the profits from the improvement to the buildings must be taken into account. [68] Transcript, pages 273-277. [69] Generally, the evidence leads me to conclude that the appellants did not always draw clear distinctions between the activities of the Partnership, the activities of IIB, and their purely personal activities ...

The transfer of a real right in a certain and determinate property, or in several properties considered as a universality, vests the acquirer with the right upon the formation of the contract, even though the property is not delivered immediately and the price remains to be determined. ... But he knew that he could count on the absolute honesty of the appellant, who considered herself a temporary depositary of her property ...

He considered the project idea to be viable and worked with Roth on same. ... R. 2003 DTC 5225 the Federal Court of Appeal analyzed whether the right to compete would be considered to be “property” within the meaning of the definition of that word in the Act.   ...

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 (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. ... These rules will ensure that where it can reasonably be considered that one of the main purposes of a tax-free intercorporate dividend was to reduce the proceeds on a disposition of a share, the capital gain otherwise determined will be adjusted to reflect the extent to which aggregate tax-free dividends have exceeded post-1971 taxed retained earnings. [28]     In 729658 Alberta Ltd. v. ...