Search - considered

Presently, this singular issue has not been directly considered by any Canadian court.   ... Aside from minor authority in obiter dicta, courts have not considered whether paragraph 152(4)(a) requires fraud or only misrepresentation in the supply of information under the Act: Cooper v Canada, [1998] TCJ No. 919 (QL), [1999] 1 CTC 2312, and Ridge Run Developments Inc. v Canada, 2007 TCC 68, 2007 DTC 734. ...

The fact that the insurance company paid the final benefit confirms that it considered the fire to be accidental. ...   [83]          The Appellant Corporation's appeal is allowed for the 2001 taxation year; it will be taken into account that the gain realized through the disposition of the Immovable on Lake Mondor must be considered a capital gain. ...

Tuli, the appellant’s technical expert, considered the attempted functionality accomplished in 2008, and accordingly released the printer onto the market, the technological uncertainty at the system/printer level had been resolved and could no longer exist in 2009 and 2010. [51]         Mr.  ... Various options were considered, the slip clutch was redesigned whereby the two surfaces of the clutch and the reel in contact with the felts would have a series of concentric interlocking grooves or ridges that would increase the effective surface area of the clutch. ...

SR & ED is defined in subsections 2900(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Regulations as follows: (1) For the purposes of this Part and paragraphs 37(7)(6) and 37.1(5)(e) of the Act, “scientific research and experimental development” means systematic investigation or search carried out in a field of science or technology by means of experiment or analysis, that is to say, (a) basic research, namely, work undertaken for the advancement of scientific knowledge without a specific practical application in view, (b) applied research, namely, work undertaken for the advancement of scientific knowledge with a specific practical application in view, or (c) development, namely, use of the results of basic or applied research for the purpose of creating new, or improving existing, materials, devices, products or processes, but does not include activities with respect to (d) market research or sales promotion; (e) quality control or routine testing of materials, devices or products; (f) research in the social sciences or the humanities; (g) prospecting, exploring or drilling for or producing minerals, petroleum or natural gas; (h) the commercial production of a new or improved material, device or product or the commercial use of a new or improved process; (i) style changes; or (j) routine data collection. (2) For the purposes of clauses 37(7)(c)(7)(B) and (h)() of the Act, the following expenditures are directly attributable to the prosecution of scientific research and experimental development: (a) the cost of materials consumed in such prosecution; (b) where an employee directly undertakes, supervises or supports such prosecution, the portion of the salaries or wages and related benefits paid to or for that employee that can reasonably be considered to relate thereto; and (c) other expenditures that are directly related to such prosecution and that would not have been incurred if such prosecution had not occurred. ... Different approaches were considered by the Department of National Revenue, specifically: (a) should the sale proceeds of the fabrics produced in the course of prosecuting the SR & ED be applied against the cost of SR & ED (the “netting” approach)? ...

  [9]               The Appellant’s counsel further argued that should the Court find that the Appellant is not entitled to a dividend refund:   (a)   if there is no refund under subsection 129(1), there can be no reduction of the RDTOH under paragraph 129(3)(d);   (b)   the modern approach to statutory interpretation suggests that the Act is to be read in its grammatical and ordinary sense and  harmoniously with its object and with the intention of Parliament;   (c)   the Department of Finance’s Technical Notes on section 129 [3] suggest that dividends do not exist until they are paid; the same approach should be used with the notion of refunds;   (d)   the ordinary meaning of dividend involves payment and receipt and so does the ordinary meaning of refund;   (e)   the correct meaning of the term “dividend refund” must respect the ordinary meaning of the word “refund”;   (f)    when considered in the context of other provisions of the Act, having regard to the intentions of Parliament, the ordinary meaning of the phrase “dividend refund” cannot be anything other than an amount received, receivable or credited; any other meaning would create absurdity and internal incoherence.             ... The appellant submitted that there should have been no interest charged for the period September 22, 1990 to April 1, 1992 because during that time the Minister was in fact a debtor to the appellant if the final determination of the refundable dividend was considered. ...

ASSUMPTIONS In forming our opinion of fair market value, we have assumed, in addition to the assumptions noted throughout this report, that: ·         the Trustee could not release any funds to the Agent in the event that the Mississauga property did not close; ·         SCP, the General Partner and Asia Pacific had no alternative source of financing (other than through the development project) to pay the Commission Receivable to the Agent; ·         it was difficult (given the market at the time and lack of lender confidence) to obtain financing for the Mississauga Property at the valuation date; ·         there were no contracts or agreements in effect or being negotiated at the valuation date which would have a material effect on the Commission Receivable, that have not been noted in this report; ·         the Agent accepted that it had an obligation to pay the subagents' commissions; ·         as a matter of law, the Agent had no right to enforce payment of the Commission Receivable as of the valuation date; and ·         there are no significant factors that bear on the fair market value of the Commission Receivable at the valuation date that we have not considered in reaching our conclusions as noted herein. ... They, unlike the Respondent's submissions, took into account a considered analysis of the pertinent facts described in Judge Bowman's words as, "the common sense and commercial reality". ...

We have considered the two questions and the Respondent’s answers are as follows:   1.     ... Considered without reference to the English version, the Minister’s powers of reassessment once there is any misrepresentation or fraud as described in subparagraph (b) and (c) appear to be wide open and unlimited. ...

Analysis and determination regarding the benefit conferred on the Appellants under subsection 15(1) of the Act   [34]          Subsection 15(1) of the Act reads as follows:   15. (1) Benefit conferred on shareholder-- Where at any time in a taxation year a benefit is conferred on a shareholder, or on a person in contemplation of the person becoming a shareholder, by a corporation otherwise than by   (a) the reduction of the paid-up capital, the redemption, cancellation or acquisition by the corporation of shares of its capital stock or on the winding-up, discontinuance or reorganization of its business, or otherwise by way of a transaction to which section 88 applies,   (b) the payment of a dividend or a stock dividend;   (c) conferring, on all owners of common shares of the capital stock of the corporation at that time, a right in respect of each common share, that is identical to every other right conferred at that time in respect of each other such share, to acquire additional shares of the capital stock of the corporation, and, for the purpose of this paragraph,   (i) where   (A) the voting rights attached to a particular class of common shares of the capital stock of a corporation differ from the voting rights attached to another class of common shares of the capital stock of the corporation, and,   (B) there are no other differences between the terms and conditions of the classes of shares that could cause the fair market value of a share of the particular class to differ materially from the fair market value of a share of the other class,   the shares of the particular class shall be deemed to be property that is identical to the shares of the other class, and   (ii) rights are not considered identical if the cost of acquiring those rights differs,   (d) an action described in paragraph 84(1)(c.1), 84(1)(c.2) or 84(1)(c.3) ... To summarize, Robertson may be considered to stand for the proposition that where, in the course of an employment relationship, an employee receives a right to acquire property from his or her employer upon the fulfillment of a condition or contingency, the receipt of that right will not constitute a paragraph 6(1)(a) benefit to the employee and such a benefit will not arise until the condition or contingency has been fulfilled. ...

On the other hand, the Minister considered the appellant to carry on the land development business, a business different from that carried on by Newport. ...   [54]          I cannot agree with respondent counsel's submission that real estate business cannot be considered a generic business. ...

Subsection 118.4(1) reads: For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ... (e) Finally there must be considered- and this is the most difficult principle to formulate — the criteria to be employed in forming the judgement whether the mental impairment is of such severity that the person is entitled to the credit, i.e. that that person’s ability to perceive, think and remember is markedly restricted within the meaning of the Act. ...