Search - considered

(i) ordinarily inhabited in the year by the taxpayer [...] except that, subject to section 54.1, in no case shall any such housing unit, interest or share, as the case may be, be considered to be a taxpayer's principal residence for a year (c)... unless the particular property was designated by the taxpayer in prescribed from and manner to be the taxpayer's principal residence for the year and no other property has been designated for the purposes of this definition... [...] and, for the purpose of this definition, (e) the principal residence of a taxpayer for a taxation year shall be deemed to include... the land subjacent to the housing unit and such portion of any immediately contiguous land as can reasonably be regarded as contributing to the use and enjoyment of the housing unit as a residence, except that where the total area of the subjacent land and of that portion exceeds 1/2 hectare, the excess shall be deemed not to have contributed to the use and enjoyment of the housing unit as a residence unless the taxpayer establishes that it was necessary to such use and enjoyment [...] [7] In this appeal, the appellant has sold adjoining plots of mixed-use land that is zoned both residential and commercial. ... " [10] The case of Fourt (supra) has not been considered in any subsequent reported cases. [11] In view of the above and especially of the evidence given at the trial the appeal is hereby dismissed. ...

No. 1622, a judgment dated November 24, 1997, the Federal Court of Appeal said the following at paragraph 39: A contract which is either expressly or impliedly prohibited by statute is normally considered void ab initio. ... It added that while a contract which has an illegal consideration or whose object is prohibited by law or is contrary to public order is null or void, the consequences of such nullity must be considered. [14] In that judgment the Federal Court of Appeal gave examples of the operation of the good faith question. ...

She worked on weekends and during two summer months which she considered part of her business activities, separate from her employment income. [3] Despite careful cross-examination, it was difficult to discern exactly what the Appellant did for the advancement of her business during the relevant years. ... Linden J. continued: Bowman, T.C.C.J's approach to the problem in the case above seems very sensible and might be considered in future cases such as this one. ...

If it is a substantially similar contract of employment Parliament has obviously considered it to be only fair that it should be included in the scheme. ... In the case of Bayside, supra, the Federal Court of Appeal laid out certain matters which should be considered by this Court when hearing these appeals. ...

He considered a number of possibilities, including a boat charter business, and the manufacture of custom canes for the disabled. ... Prince, in his evidence, attributed this to the fact that he could not recruit people to do either the knitting or the selling for him at what he considered to be suitable rates of pay. ...

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Lamarre Proulx, J.T.C.C. [1]      This is an appeal by way of the informal procedure; it concerns the disability tax credit provided for by section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act (the " Act ") which was claimed by the Appellant for the 1995 taxation year. [2]      The questions at issue are whether it is an essential condition of entitlement to this credit that a certificate issued by a doctor be provided, and if so, whether this essential condition infringes the Appellant's rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the " Charter "). [3]      The Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister"), in assessing the Appellant, disallowed the disability tax credit for the reasons described in paragraph 7 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal (the "Reply"), as follows: a)          for the 1995 taxation year, the Appellant claimed a disability tax credit in the amount of $719.61 ($4,233 x 17%) for himself; b)          the Appellant has not submitted with his tax return a prescribed form T2201 duly completed and signed by a doctor; c)          without additional information, the Minister considered that the Appellant's ability to perform a basic activity or daily living was not markedly restricted during the 1995 taxation year; d)          given that the Appellant's ability to perform a basic activity or daily living was not markedly restricted during the 1995 taxation year, the disability tax credit in the amount of $719.61 was not allowed. [4]      The Appellant explained to the Court that, on January 23, 1981, he had a car accident while driving a taxi in the City of North York in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Exhibit A-1). ... I must say that it should also fail because the evidence has not revealed that the Appellant was unable or required an inordinate amount of time to perform any basic activity of daily living as defined in subparagraph 118.4(1)(c) of the Act. [12]     Paragraph 118.4(1) of the Act reads as follows: (1)         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. [13]     There is not one of the basic activities described in subparagraph 118.4(1)(c) of the Act that the Appellant is unable to perform. ...

Dreaver’s employment and a reserve for it to be considered “situated on a reserve” under that provision, and thereby, tax exempt under paragraph 81(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. [4]               That determination depends on the particular facts of each case, considered in accordance with the approach set out by the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Williams v. ...

., 89 DTC 615, Rip, J. of the Tax Court of Canada considered whether the Appellant was entitled to claim the principal residence exemption. ... The Appellant also stated that in 1993 he rented an apartment on Imperial Avenue in Burnaby where he kept his clothes and furniture and where he regularly resided. [20]     The word "ordinarily" was considered in Neufeld v. ...

  [15]          It remains to be considered whether the conduct of the parties was consistent with this intent. ...   [17]          The other factors usually considered, ownership of tools, chance of profit and risk of loss, are not as important in this case and they appear to be neutral ...

The taxpayer denies that he adopted a blanketed response and insists that each request was individually considered and responded to accordingly. ...   [11]          Rule 147 specifically refers to settlement offers as a matter to be considered in deciding costs awards. ...