Search - considered

Livingston, 2008 DTC 6233, Justice Sexton of the Federal Court of Appeal laid down the criteria of application of section 160 in connection with the purpose and spirit of subsection 160(1):   [9] The   Tax Court Judge   determined that in order for subsection 160(1) of the Act to apply, the following four criteria must be met:   1)             There must be a transfer of property;   2)      The parties must not be dealing at arm's length;   3)      There must be no consideration or inadequate consideration flowing from the transferee to the transferor (I would note that the trial judge considered the test to be “No consideration or inadequate consideration flowing from the   transferor   to the   transferee ” [emphasis added]: this is a mistaken quotation of the test as cited in   Raphael v. ...

Gotlieb's Testimony: [17] He considered the KDS a memory aid and information retrieval system. ...

It reads:         Where the members of a partnership have agreed to share, in a specified proportion, any income or loss of the partnership from any source or from sources in a particular place, as the case may be, or any other amount in respect of any activity of the partnership that is relevant to the computation of the income or taxable income of any of the members thereof, and the principal reason for the agreement may reasonably be considered to be the reduction or postponement of the tax that might otherwise have been or become payable under this Act, the share of each member of the partnership in the income or loss, as the case may be, or in that other amount, is the amount that is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances including the proportions in which the members have agreed to share profits and losses of the partnership from other sources or from sources in other places. [34]     The arrangements fall squarely within that provision. ...

Canadian investment income for a taxation year is the aggregate of: 1. taxable capital gains for the year less allowable capital losses for the year from dispositions of property to the extent that they may reasonably be considered to be income or losses, as the case may be, from sources in Canada; and 2. all amounts each of which is the corporation's income for the year from a source in Canada that is property net of all expenses; minus 3. the current years losses from a source in Canada that is property. ...

These categories were considered to account for all possible known facts. ...

Accordingly if it is determined that he has been appointed to that service by a religious order, the question whether he is in charge of or ministering to a congregation need not be considered. ...

These provisions read as follows:   103(1)              Where the members of a partnership have agreed to share income or loss of the partnership and the principal reason for the agreement may reasonably be considered to be a reduction or postponement of tax payable, the share of each member of the partnership in the income or loss is the amount that is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, including the proportions in which members have agreed to share profits and losses.   103(1.1)           Where two or more members of a partnership who are not dealing at arm’s length agree to share any income or loss of the partnership and such share is not reasonable in the circumstances, having regard to the capital invested or work performed by its members or such other facts that may be relevant, the share shall be deemed to be the amount that is reasonable in the circumstances.   74.1(2)         If any individual has transferred or lent property directly or indirectly by means of a trust or any other means to or for the benefit of a minor who does not deal with the individual at arm’s length, income or loss from the property is deemed to be income or loss to the individual. ...

The appellant was unable to show how the advances at issue in this case were distinguishable from the advances the Ontario Court of Appeal considered in TCPL. ...

In a letter of March 17, 1988 (mistakenly dated February 17, 1988), the appellant advised Vidalin that: (a) As a result of work stoppages due to Vidalin’s payroll problems, the appellant considered Vidalin to be in breach of the subcontract and, as a result, remedies available to the appellant at that time included termination of the subcontract and dismissal of Vidalin from the work site; The procedure for the payment of the workers’ wages, during the relevant period, was as follows: Vidalin advised the appellant of the workers to be paid, their total wages, net of deductions including Income Tax (IT), Canada Pension Plan (CPP), Unemployment Insurance (UI), Workmen’s Compensation (WC) and union dues. ...

The amount received by the employee in this situation would not be considered to have been received under an employees' or workers' compensation law of Canada or a province as noted in paragraph 56(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act. ...