Search - considered

The Court did refer to the motivation of Horvath but only as one factor considered in reaching the conclusion that the poultry operation was not a business. ...

The wording of both is the same except for the amount by which the appellant's income from the partnership was increased: The Minister of National Revenue has considered the facts and reasons set forth in your Notice of Objection and hereby confirms that the assessment has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act for the following reasons: The amount of $31,597.00 claimed as a deduction from income in respect of consulting fees was not an expense incurred by the partnership of Milman, Valo & Barsky for the purpose of gaining or producing income within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Act, and accordingly, your income from the partnership of Milman, Valo, and Barsky has been properly increased by $11,582.00 ($20,015); alternatively, you have not shown that the amount claimed as consulting fees in the amount of $31,597.00 by the partnership of Milman, Valo and Barsky was an allocation of a share of profits from the partnership to a former partner within the meaning of subsection 96(1.1) of the Act. ...

., [1969] C.T.C. 704; 70 D.T.C. 6019, Cattanach, J. considered the meaning of subsection 56(2) of the former Act, the predecessor of subsection 163(2). ...

He and his wife considered the offer and accepted, even though he had no intention to cut back on the farm, or to move the farm operation to Toronto, where he would be posted. ...

Justice Urie of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division considered and commented on Mr. ...

In this latter context counsel argued that they could not be considered subsidiary or ancillary since they could not have been severed from the farm business without jeopardizing the business. ...

In that case the Court considered the taxability of a payment of $300 received by an employee of a life insurance company from her employer as an award for the successful completion of three courses on the subject of life insurance. ...

.- With respect to ELEMENT B, the credits being inputs were considered for this period.- However, given that 1) the consideration was not paid in full; 2) the contract was terminated; and 3) 9210 filed a proposal, the consideration was reduced to $25,000 and all of these conditions arose in 2014, a tax return should have been filed for the period reflecting this situation.- As a result, the applicable consideration for the 2014‑2015 period became $21,743.88 and the tax collectible (ELEMENT A) was $0 since it was reported as having been previously collected.- The tax in this calculation (ELEMENT B) must be reduced by $23,912.81, and the only tax to be remitted is $1,087.20 in GST.- Ultimately, taxpayers should be assessed according to their reality. ...

Again in Watling v Lewis, [1911] 1 Ch 414, a proviso was rejected because it was held that the only effect that could be given to it would be to destroy the original covenant; and in Re Tewkesbury Gas Co, [1911] 2 Ch 279, at page 285, Parker J considered that when there was an unqualified covenant to pay with a proviso that it should only be enforced at the “option of the covenant’ the proviso must be rejected as obviously destructive of the object of the instrument. ...

To my mind, it is not without significance that that course was the only alternative course considered and that it was decided upon as the only thing left to do. ...