Search - considered

James granted stock options only to those employees whom he considered key to the Company’s growth and development. [27] This objective is consistent with paragraph 1.1 of the document under which the plan was established and in which James was referred to as the “Majority Shareholder”: The purpose of the Plan is to secure for the Corporation and its shareholders the benefits of the incentive inherent in share ownership by Eligible Persons who, in the judgment of the Majority Shareholder, could have a significant impact on the future growth and success of the Corporation. ... Pettypiece his initial 25,000 Trust Units: Scott McGregor was a big one because the committee felt that he deserved a lot more than he did in the [stock option] plan, based on his contributions in the company, and Murphy [Pettypiece] was also considered to be an increasingly important person in the organization, justifying his allocation of additional trust units. [65] [103] On September 3, 2014, the Committee decided to grant Mr. ... Statutory Appendix Income of beneficiary 104(13) There shall be included in computing the income for a particular taxation year of a beneficiary under a trust such of the following amounts as are applicable: (a) in the case of a trust (other than a trust referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition trust in subsection 108(1)), … Designation in respect of taxable dividends 104(19) A portion of a taxable dividend received by a trust, in a particular taxation year of the trust, on a share of the capital stock of a taxable Canadian corporation is, for the purposes of this Act other than Part XIII, deemed to be a taxable dividend on the share received by a taxpayer, in the taxpayer’s taxation year in which the particular taxation year ends, and is, for the purposes of paragraphs 82(1)(b) and 107(1)(c) and (d) and section 112, deemed not to have been received by the trust, if (a) an amount equal to that portion (i) is designated by the trust, in respect of the taxpayer, in the trust’s return of income under this Part for the particular taxation year, and (ii) may reasonably be considered (having regard to all the circumstances including the terms and conditions of the trust) to be part of the amount that, because of paragraph (13)(a), subsection (14) or section 105, was included in computing the income for that taxation year of the taxpayer; Designation in respect of taxable capital gains 104(21) For the purposes of sections 3 and 111, except as they apply for the purposes of section 110.6, and subject to paragraph 132(5.1)(b), an amount in respect of a trust’s net taxable capital gains for a particular taxation year of the trust is deemed to be a taxable capital gain, for the taxation year of a taxpayer in which the particular taxation year ends, from the disposition by the taxpayer of capital property if (a) the amount (i) is designated by the trust, in respect of the taxpayer, in the trust’s return of income under this Part for the particular taxation year, and (ii) may reasonably be considered (having regard to all the circumstances including the terms and conditions of the trust) to be part of the amount that, because of paragraph (13)(a), subsection (14) or section 105, was included in computing the income for that taxation year of the taxpayer; Beneficiaries’ taxable capital gain 104(21.2) Where … a trust referred to in subsection 7(2) designates an amount in respect of a beneficiary in respect of its net taxable capital gains for a taxation year (in this subsection referred to as the “designation year”), (a) the trust shall in its return of income under this Part for the designation year designate an amount in respect of its eligible taxable capital gains, if any, for the designation year in respect of the beneficiary equal to the amount determined in respect of the beneficiary under each of subparagraphs 104(21.2)(b)(i) and 104(21.2)(b)(ii); and (b) the beneficiary is, for the purposes of sections 3, 74.3 and 111 as they apply for the purposes of section 110.6, (i) deemed to have disposed of the capital property referred to in clause (ii)(A), (B) or (C) if a taxable capital gain is determined in respect of the beneficiary for the beneficiary’s taxation year in which the designation year ends under those clauses, and (ii) deemed to have a taxable capital gain for the beneficiary’s taxation year in which the designation year ends … and (B) from a disposition of a capital property that is a qualified small business corporation share (as defined for the purpose of section 110.6) of the beneficiary equal to the amount determined by the formula (A × B × F)/(D × E) where A is the lesser of (I) the amount determined by the formula G- H where G is the total of amounts designated under subsection (21) for the designation year by the trust, and H is the total of amounts designated under subsection (13.2) for the designation year by the trust, and (II) the trust’s eligible taxable capital gains for the designation year, B is the amount, if any, by which the amount designated under subsection (21) for the designation year by the trust in respect of the beneficiary exceeds the amount designated under subsection (13.2) for the year by the trust in respect of the beneficiary for the taxation year, C is the amount, if any, that would be determined under paragraph 3(b) for the designation year in respect of the trust’s capital gains and capital losses if the only properties referred to in that paragraph were properties that, at the time they were disposed of, were qualified farm properties, qualified fishing properties or qualified farm or fishing properties of the trust, D is the total of all amounts each of which is the amount determined for B for the designation year in respect of a beneficiary under the trust, E is the total of the amounts determined for C and F for the designation year in respect of the beneficiary, and F is the amount, if any, that would be determined under paragraph 3(b) for the designation year in respect of the trust’s capital gains and capital losses if the only properties referred to in that paragraph were properties that, at the time they were disposed of, were qualified small business corporation shares of the trust, other than qualified farm property, qualified fishing property or qualified farm or fishing property, and for the purposes of section 110.6, those capital properties shall be deemed to have been disposed of by the beneficiary in that taxation year of the beneficiary. ...

Nets and traps were, from that point onwards, considered class 8 capital assets; however, as a matter of policy, we do allow fishermen to use an inventory method to expense nets and traps. ... The issue of the transformers' life expectancy has already been considered above. ...        (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), (b) and (h), in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from a business or property, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto:   (e.2) such portion of the lesser of   (i) the premiums payable by the taxpayer under a life insurance policy (other than an annuity contract) in respect of the year, where   (A) an interest in the policy is assigned to a restricted financial institution in the course of a borrowing from the institution,   (B) the interest payable in respect of the borrowing is or would, but for subsections 18(2) and (3.1) and sections  21 and 28, be deductible in computing the taxpayer's income for the year, and   (C) the assignment referred to in clause (A) is required by the institution as collateral for the borrowing and   (ii) the net cost of pure insurance in respect of the year, as determined in accordance with the regulations, in respect of the interest in the policy referred to in clause (i)(A),   as can reasonably be considered to relate to the amount owing from time to time during the year by the taxpayer to the institution under the borrowing;   [46]     It is the position of the Appellants that this insurance was required by the lender and should be deductible. ...

Ouellet said that he considered the amount of $12,134.95 a loan repayment. ... Ouellet considered a $10,000 deposit, made in 1995, to be a loan repayment. ...   [106]   The factors to be considered are set out at paragraph 94:   (a) Did the authorities have reasonable grounds to lay charges? ...

The province guaranteed the debts but this in itself does not make NSPC an agent of the Crown. [21]          Some of these factors were considered relevant in Metropolitan Meat Industry Board v. ... The following passage from Lord Haldane's judgment at pp. 904-6 is illustrative of the distinction that must be considered here.                 ... The Queen, 97 DTC 1173, reversed 98 DTC 6570. [54]          Had the matter come before me as an ordinary appeal from an assessment I would not have considered myself constrained to accept the issue as framed by the parties. ...

For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the view of Pigeon J. in Lipson, supra, to the extent that it may have been applied to paragraph 18(1)(a), must now be considered to have been superseded by the rationale in Ludco. ... It is the direct use of the proceeds of the loan that is strictly considered in the case of interest expenses ... In his reasons in that case, Joyal J. at paragraph 38 notes that tax should be considered an element of cost “like production costs, processes, equipment, rates of extraction, rates of productivity, levels of training and the like.” ...

The expression “at arm’s length” was considered by Bonner J. in Mc- Nichol where, at pages 117 and 118, he discussed the concept as follows: Three criteria or tests are commonly used to determine whether the parties to a transaction are dealing at arm’s length. ... The second question is whether the transaction, albeit resulting in a tax benefit, is removed from subsection 245(3) because it: may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. ... Subsection 245(4) reads: For greater certainty, subsection (2) does not apply to a transaction where it may reasonably be considered that the transaction would not result directly or indirectly in a misuse of the provisions of this Act or an abuse having regard to the provisions of this Act, other than this section, read as a whole. ...

Canada, [38] the Federal Court of Appeal held that there must be a common connection or community of interest uniting shareholders of a particular corporation before they can be considered as a “group of persons” with respect to the control of a particular corporation. ... However, if new paragraph 256(7)(c) were applied to each of these examples, control of Lossco would be considered to have been acquired by a person or group of persons because the shares of Lossco issued to the shareholders of Pubco in each case are such that, if they had been acquired by one person, that person would have acquired control of Lossco. ... The paid‑up capital of VHHC was eliminated in the calculation of Copthorne’s paid‑up capital. [110]    In my opinion, the “abusive” nature of the transactions considered in Copthorne is less apparent than the abuse found to exist with regard to the transactions in the instant case. ...

The possibility of selling some of the early acquisitions was considered but not acted upon. ... Lake stated his opinion as follows at page 39 of Exhibit R-10: No matter how one considers this assemblage from the standpoint of the real market, it is our considered opinion there is no way that an experienced dealer could sell this material at fair market in a period of less than ten years and then at varying degrees of discounts. ... Robinson had considered selling new Morrisseau works in 1984 and 1985, and if he had known (as he should have known) the prices being paid by people like the Appellants on the streets of Thunder Bay, I think he would have regarded those prices as too close to his personal formula of paying cash at about 20 per cent to 25 per cent of expected realizable selling prices and, therefore, too risky having regard to the low point in Morrisseau’s personal life and the ease with which his new works were being distributed. ...

Associate Chief Justice Donald Bowman granted the motion, noting that the question of whether the underlying corporate assessment can be challenged by a director has not yet been resolved, and should be fully considered. ... It is not sufficient that a person be signing cheques for the corporation for him or her to be considered a "de facto" director. ... The assessment of a de facto director should be considered only in cases where a person is representing himself or herself as a director. ...

  [33]          This approach was also considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in Hsu v. ... The amount was subsequently returned by the mother further evidencing the fact it was considered a gift. ... Statute-barred Year and Penalties:   [102]      Having found that the Appellant has met the onus of rebutting the Minister’s assumptions above and that the Minister provided no satisfactory proof to the contrary, it stands to reason that the Appellant did not make any misrepresentations as to her income for the years in dispute, and accordingly the 2001 year must by default be considered statute barred under subsection 152(4) of the Act. ...