Search - considered

It is true that the number of hours of work is unusual, but taking all of the circumstances into account, I am inclined to believe that a substantially similar contract could have been entered into by a payer and an employee dealing with each other at arm's length. [48]          All things considered, I conclude that the individual appellant's employment was insurable during the four periods at issue. [49]          For these reasons, the appeals are allowed. ...

On more than one occasion it was considered necessary to send it a DEMAND FOR GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RETURN(S). ...

., contends the respondent, unless the Minister had not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the court may not interfere. ...

I declared and now state again that my first unemployment insurance claim in August 1992 was not planned and that, during my qualifying weeks from August 1991 until at least June 1992, I never thought of, or considered in any way whatever, eventually making an application for unemployment insurance benefits. 3. ...

The bank statements (Exhibit I-6) corroborate this evidence or, in any event, support this interpretation of the facts, since the bank account was credited with $26,455.17 on January 15, 1988. [27]          The auditor apparently considered- and this was also what counsel for the respondent maintained in his arguments- that the home renovations were financed using the line of credit and that the deposit of $26,455.17 made it possible to put $25,000 back on the line of credit on January 22, 1988 (Exhibit I-6). [28]          In testifying, Mr. ...

Counsel referred to the fact the Minister- in April, 1998- did not advise the appellant that the Minister considered the wrong entity to have applied for the rebate and- instead- only raised that issue in December, 1998 when an Appeals Officer advised- during the course of meetings- that GKO Design could not then apply for a rebate because it was out of time. ...

The essence of resolving and distinguishing the contractor from employee is his independence...In instances where the driver's means of financial support is [sic] inextricably bound up with the respondent we are of the view that he cannot be considered an independent contractor. ...

Attached as Schedule "B" is a breakdown of this amount; w) In reporting income for the 1992 taxation year, the Appellant understated his income from Royal Distributors by the amount of $3,964.37 (1/2 of $7,928.73), by failing to report the amounts of $13,928.73 as income and $6,000.00 as an expense of Royal Distributors; x) The Appellant made misrepresentations attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default in filing his 1992 Income Tax Return by failing to report income in the amount of $29,550.65; y) On or about April 18, 1992, the Appellant purchased a 1979 Peterbilt Truck for $11,500.00; z) The Appellant had the engine overhauled on this Peterbilt Truck at a cost of $14,948.49, which was billed to him on June 29 th, 1992; aa) The cost of the overhaul of the engine ($14,948.49) was substantial in relation to the cost of the Peterbilt Truck ($11,500.00); bb) The overhaul of the engine was not regular maintenance but was a betterment of the Peterbilt Truck acquired; cc) The engine of the Peterbilt Truck could be considered a separate marketable asset; dd) The overhaul of the engine was necessary to put the Peterbilt Truck into suitable condition for use; ee) The overhaul of the Peterbilt Trust was for the enduring benefit of the farming business; ff) The Appellant also had work done on this Peterbilt Trust to pass a road safety inspection in August or September of 1992 at a cost of $1,521.85; gg) The Peterbilt Truck was sold in 1994 for $25,000.00; hh) The cost of the overhaul ($14,948.49) was on account of capital; (ii) The Appellant knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence in carrying out a duty or obligation imposed under the Act, made or participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of false statements in his return of income in respect of the 1992 taxation year, as a result of which the tax that would have been payable assessed on the information provided in the Appellant's Income Tax Return filed for that year was less than the tax payable by the amount of $7,437.20; B. ...

Canada, 2006 FCA 224, at paragraph 43. [28]         In drawing the line between “ordinary” negligence or neglect and “gross” negligence, a number of factors have to be considered: (a)     the magnitude of the omission in relation to the income declared, (b)     the opportunity the taxpayer had to detect the error, (c)      the taxpayer’s education and apparent intelligence, (d)     genuine effort to comply. ...

There are many cases in which the matter has been considered both in this court and the Federal Court of Appeal. ...