Search - considered

There is no directly applicable law or regulation. [9] While section 172 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) does not apply to Employment Insurance or Canada Pension Plan proceedings in the court, it may usefully be considered in applying this court’s implied jurisdiction given that it sets out the factors usually considered by courts in deciding whether or not a judgment should be set aside or amended. [10] Section 172 says: (1) A judgment that, (a) contains an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, or (b) requires amendment in any matter on which the Court did not adjudicate, may be amended by the Court on application or of its own motion. (2) A party who seeks to, (a) have a judgment set aside or varied on the ground of fraud or of facts arising or discovered after it was made, (b) suspend the operation of a judgment, or (c) obtain other relief than that originally directed. may make a motion for the relief claimed. [11] The only part of section 172 that could be relevant is part of paragraph 172(2)(a). ...

Act- Analysis 4.01 Act 22 Sections 118.2 and 118.3 of the Income Tax Act deal with the tax credits for medical expenses and mental or physical impairment. 23 However, in the instant case it is section 118.4 which describes the severe and prolonged impairment which is the basis for the application of sections 118.2 and 118.3. 24 Section 118.4 reads as follows: 118.4: Nature of impairment. (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 may 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. 4.02 Analysis 25 4.02.1 The evidence was that the appellant had two disabilities: one relating to bowel or bladder elimination (118.4(c)(v)) and one relating to walking (118.4(c)(vi)). 26 4.02.2 With respect to the latter disability, the appellant is unable to walk without his orthopaedic boots (3.07). ... He can walk between 200 and 300 feet on the sidewalk or on asphalt (3.08). 27 According to the respondent's publication T4045(E) Rev. 92: A person is considered to have a severe mobility limitation if the person cannot walk on level ground, even with mechanical aids, for more than our established guideline of 100 metres without another person's help. 28 4.02.3 A sufficient description of the appellant's urinary disability is given in paragraph 3.09 above. 29 4.03 As to these two limitations, the Court considers that the appellant had severe and prolonged impairments during the 1992 and 1993 taxation years and that he is entitled to the tax credit provided in the Act. 5. ...

Notwithstanding subsection 2(2), where an individual is resident in Canada throughout part of a taxation year and throughout another part of the year is non-resident, the individual's taxable income for the year is the amount, if any, by which the total of (a) the individual's income for the period or periods in the year throughout which the individual is resident in Canada, computed as though that period or those periods were the whole taxation year and (b) the amount that would be the individual's taxable income earned in Canada for the year if at no time in the year the individual had been resident in Canada, computed as though the part of the year that is not in the period or periods referred to in paragraph (a) were the whole taxation year, exceeds (c) the total of (i) such of the deductions permitted for the purpose of computing taxable income as can reasonably be considered wholly applicable, and (ii) such part of any other of those deductions as can reasonably be considered applicable to the period or periods referred to in paragraph (a), except that the total of all amounts included in computing the total determined under paragraph (c) and all amounts deducted because of paragraphs 115(1)(d) to (f) in respect of the individual for the year shall not exceed the total of the amounts that would have been deductible in computing the individual's taxable income for the year had the individual been resident in Canada throughout the year. ...

.: 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 × 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. ...

Analysis 3 This is a fact driven case and therefore it is necessary that all the facts be considered as well as the evidence thereon. ... June 6, 1993 Notices of Reassessment for 1986 and 1988 20 The appellant filed Notices of Objection on August 29, 1992, to which the Minister responded 2 years and 6 months later, on June 6, 1995, with further Notices of Reassessment for the 1986 and 1988 taxation years. 21 Upon receipt of a taxpayer's Notice of Objection, the Minister is required, with all due dispatch, to reconsider the assessment and vacate, confirm or vary the assessment or reassess, and notify the taxpayer in writing under subsection 165(3) of the Act. 22 The length of the delay in the case at bar is not outside of the time limits which the Courts have considered to have been “with all due dispatch”. ...

He stated he considered himself responsible for his load barring damage or loss due to unforeseen events. ... He considered he was free – at all times in 2003 and 2004 – to have driven for other companies but had no need to do so. ...   [33]     Sharlow, J.A. referred to the factors considered by the Tax Court of Canada. ...

The Forward Contract cannot be considered “property” or “capital property” because “it is a tree that bears no fruit”. ... MacDonald are the capital assets to be considered in making that determination. ... MacDonald entered into the Forward Contract, which could be considered as a triggering event. ...

Conversely, when a number of elements of a supply are reasonably severable or separable, the supply will usually be considered as being a multiple supply. ... The Queen, [6] the appellant, who operated a massage parlour, allowed the masseuses, who were considered to be self-employed, to use its facilities. ... Although the appellant deducted an amount equal to its income as delivery expenses, this indicates to me that the appellant itself considered the delivery service as being part of its business. ...

Moreover, the Department is also prepared to allow an ITC for the cost of major renovations made by a taxpayer after acquiring property that has already been used provided that the renovations are significant enough for the property to be considered completely restored. The issue of whether the installation of a new motor in a used vessel is a renovation significant enough for the property to be considered completely restored is a question of fact that must be resolved in light of all the circumstances and particularities of each case.   ... However, if the company makes major renovations to the vessel, it is possible that the renovation costs would qualify for the ITC provided that the renovations are significant enough for the property to be considered completely restored ...

Judge Bell stated that the phrase "in the course of commercial activity of a person" is not defined and has not been judicially considered, but that "this phrase does not differ greatly from the phrase 'in the ordinary course of business'" (at p. 46-6). ... Where there is external evidence to that effect, an amendment can be considered to reflect a change in the legislation, HSC Research (supra). ... The bulk of the value of the supply at issue, the customer lists, are considered to be goodwill. [58] As the Respondent stated, the Act was a maze during the first three years as it related to the treatment of goodwill-- in one twelve month period three different versions of section 167.1 existed. ...