Search - considered

It has been argued that the three factors, namely: — the time spent; — the capital committed; — the profitability both actual and potential: could and should be read and considered disjunctively. ... Potentiality of profit, rather than actuality is to be considered in applying section 31 since it applies only where there is a /oss in a taxation year. ...

They were generally held in the evenings or on Sundays in her home to discuss the company's affairs.Having considered the evidence and the legislation, I am not satisfied that the amount of $12,088 paid to the appellant in the taxation year 1982 was an allowance within the meaning of paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Act. ... The Federal Court of Appeal has considered the meaning of the word "allowance" in the context of the application of paragraph 11(1)(1) (now 60(b)) of the Act dealing with alimony payments. ...

The appellant argued that the position is analogous to that considered in Huston et al. v. ... At pages 617-18 (All E.R. 134) Lord Wilberforce said: No doubt in a certain sense a beneficiary under a discretionary trust has an "interest": the nature of it may, sufficiently for the purpose, be spelt out by saying that he has a right to be considered as a potential recipient of benefit by the trustees and a right to have his interest protected by a court of equity. ...

It shall not be considered precedence for future grievance resolutions; 4. ... It would therefore appear to me that based upon Savage (supra) and Nowegijick (supra) the amount at issue in this appeal — $5,000 — should be considered as a “benefit”, ”... in respect of... ...

March 23, 1985 is more than 60 days after the end of the year 1984, which is the taxation year involved in the instant case. 4.03.2 Legally, in civil law, can it be said that the payment made by the appellant on February 18, 1985 with a postdated cheque dated March 23, 1985, can be considered as a payment made on February 18, 1985? ... In my opinion, the payment made by the appellant with the postdated cheque dated March 23, 1985 cannot be considered as a payment made on February 18, 1985. 4.03.3 The appellant, however, brought up his sincere intention to pay on February 18, 1985 and wondered whether the Court can construe the law on that basis. ...

On or about the 24th day of July, 1984 the Appellant filed a Notice of Objection to the Respondent's Notice of Assessment and on or about the 13th day of November, 1984 the Respondent issued a Notice of Confirmation of the Assessment claiming that the amounts received by the Appellant as damages for mental distress and exemplary damages were considered by the Minister to be a Retiring Allowance as defined by subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act. ... But the words “were considered to be a retiring allowance as defined by subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act’’, (emphasis mine) in paragraph 6, of that agreed statement, I regard to be clear enough to delineate the task of the appellant. ...

A dividend included in computing a taxpayer’s income pursuant to subsection 56(2) is considered to be received by him for purposes of sections 82, 112, and 121 and subsection 212(2). ... (as he then was) considered subsection 16(1) of the former Income Tax Act, the predecessor of the present subsection 56(2). ...

The problem was perhaps best put in perspective by President Thorson in John Cragg v MNR, [1951] CTC 322 at 327; 52 DTC 1004 at 1007 when he said: There is, I think, no doubt that each of the profits made by the Appellant could, by itself, have been properly considered a capital gain and the Court must be careful before it decides that a series of profits, each one of which would by itself have been a capital gain, has become profit or gain from a business. ... Reasons in evidence were presented why each of the three hotels at sale should be considered on capital account and the fact that a short period of ownership of each should not influence the Court in its decision. ...

The notice of appeal read: We hereby appeal the disallowance of rental losses for 1979 and 1980 on our Florida rental property because they were considered to be “a personal or living expense” and not “outlays or expenses incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income”. ... The testimony of Mr Perratt (for both appellants) in addition to confirming the basic assertions of the respondent (supra) established that: — the appellants had little or no prior experience in the rental field — Mr Perratt agreed they were probably “naive” both with regard to their hopes and in their acceptance of income projections given to them by others. — neither appellant had taken any specific training with regard to real estate ownership or rental management. — before acquisition, they were aware of and considered the prospects of eventual retirement in the condominium, and the anticipated (at least indicated) asset value appreciation — which might cover probable losses. — they had no funds of their own in the project. — losses continued in 1983, and 1984, even though gross rentals had increased somewhat. — the Florida property now had an estimated sale value of $130.000. — the appellants had spent certain vacation times in the condominium during the years in question and subsequently. ...

The respondent referred the Court to the case of MNR v James A Taylor, [1956] CTC 189; 56 DTC 1125, a decision of the Exchequer Court of Canada wherein there was considered the term “adventure in the nature of trade”. ... The character and the surrounding circumstances must be considered and no single criterion can be formulated. ...