Search - considered

The administrative position was as follows: Although royalty income is generally from a source that is property, where it can be established that the royalty income is related to an active business carried on by the recipient corporation in the year, or the recipient corporation is, in the year, in the business of originating property from which the royalties are received, such income will be considered to be income from an active business. Therefore, if a company is in the business of composing music, the income it earns with respect to its copyrighted music would generally be considered active business income. ... Accordingly, the income is considered to be active business income by operation of the exceptions contained in subsection 129(4), which is incorporated in the definitions relating to small business rules. ...

., 2007 FCA 222 in which the Federal Court of Appeal outlined a three-part test that must be passed before the respondent will be allowed to amend its pleadings to add additional arguments, as follows: (a)   the respondent cannot include transactions which did not form the basis of the taxpayer’s reassessment; (b)   the right of the respondent to present an alternative argument in support of an assessment is limited by paragraph 152(9)(a) and (b), which speaks to the prejudice to the taxpayer; and (c)   the respondent cannot use subsection 152(9) to reassess outside the limitations described in subsection 152(4) or to collect tax exceeding the amount of the assessment under appeal. [25]   In determining whether a taxpayer would be prejudiced by an amendment, the following factors should be considered according to the Tax Court of Canada’s decision in Continental Bank of Canada v. ... The Court found that the two-year delay in that case did not cause prejudice, given the stage of the litigation and further found that permitting the amendments would permit all relevant provisions to be considered at trial. [38]   On appeal of the Loewen decision, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the right of the Crown to rely upon an alternative argument is now governed by subsection 152(9) of the Act. ... The proposed amendments will undoubtedly assist the Court in ensuring that all applicable provisions of the Act are considered by the Court and will facilitate the Court’s consideration of the true substance of the litigation, based on its merits. ...

Also, while the application of the GAAR to the Treaty raised complex issues, these issues had been considered already by the Courts. ... The Queen 2016 TCC 258, that discretion must be exercised on a principled basis, giving proper weight to the factors listed in section 147 of the Rules and such other factors as must be considered in order to produce a just result. [14]   The parties have each addressed the factors listed in 147(3) of the Rules in their submissions. ... (in Jolly Farmer   Products Inc. v The Queen, 2008 TCC 409) considered to be an unnecessary trial, in Jolly Farmer Products Inc. v. ...

The Queen, [2002] T.C.J. 547, 2002 D.T.C. 2132, following the decisions in Johnston and Radage, [7] Justice Rip as he then was, considered the cumulative effect of multiple significant restrictions activities of daily living. ... The Court considered other elimination cases. These cases make it clear that, in deciding what is an inordinate of time for bowel elimination, it is necessary to consider the number of washroom trips and the time they took in determining if it occupied an inordinate amount of time. ... The Court further considered whether all of the taxpayer’s daily decisions and actions literally revolved around their disability from the standpoint of the time required each day on an ongoing basis to perform that function (or in this case functions). ...

The first document signed was a deed of gift of cash which, as part of contributing $5000 in cash to an escrow agent, he directed this agent to apply for him to be considered a Capital Beneficiary of a Deed of Gift of Property. ... I have considered whether the gifts can be split, possibly allowing the Appellant his $5000 contribution as a charitable gift. ... While I have not considered the breadth of all the matters considered in that decision, for those that I have considered, my conclusions in this matter are the same as those which was reached in Mariano. [42]   In Mariano, Justice Pizzitelli came to the following conclusion: [49] In the end, I cannot see how any person participating in such a scheme, regardless of whether such person had an honest belief in the value of the Licences he expected to receive or not, can argue, based on the manner in which the scheme was marketed and in the makeup and integration of the Transactional Documents that deliver it, that he or she expected none other than to profit from, be enriched or not be impoverished by, such participation, and thus not have the requisite donative intent. [43]   My ruling should be and will be consistent with Mariano concerning donative intent. ...

The point at issue is whether the sum of $150,000 paid to the appellant was a sum paid to induce it to sign a purchasing loyalty agreement and, if that was the case, can that sum reasonably be considered to be a payment made in respect of the acquisition by the payor of an interest in the appellant, its business or its property within the meaning of subparagraph 12(2)(x)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1 (the “Act”). ... It was also provided that in the event Métro did not exercise its right to purchase the latter the appellant, as we have seen, had to make sure that the purchaser of the business signed a contract to be a member of Métro and observe the rights conferred on Métro by the aforesaid agreement for the unexpired portion of the term of the agreement.” [2] He concluded at page (C.T.C. 2225-26): I therefore consider that the amount of $75,000 received by the appellant can reasonably be considered a payment made for the acquisition by Métro of rights in the appellant’s business within the meaning of s. 12(l)(x)(viii) of the Act. ... There he explained how, in his view, these terms must be understood: Consideration of Acquisition of an Interest Paragraph 12(l)(x) moreover will not apply to sums that could reasonably be considered as the consideration of the acquisition of an interest in a business, a property or a taxpayer. ...

In 1991 he was considered as a resident of Canada because of certain ties he had retained with Canada coupled with the fact he had not established a residence abroad. ... In other words he was not an employee of the organization nor can he be considered as carrying on a business as it is absolutely clear that there were no profits to be derived from his activities. ... The Department has considered the possibility of the expenses being considered as a charitable donation but this obviously does not square with the facts of the case. ...

Counsel argued that in a barter transaction the proceeds of disposition to the vendor is equal to what is considered to be the cost of the property acquired by him in the exchange. ... On the evidence one can only conclude that Miller and Go Vacations considered the true commercial value of the "exchange" to be U.S. $194,000. ... While its purchase may have been considered, no substantive steps were taken to bring it about. ...

She considered these two horses to be a part of the "Eureka settlement, my settlement”. ... The Court is left to speculate as to what assets were being considered, how these assets were valued, how and to what extent they were encumbered. ... Moreover, given the circumstances, he cannot be considered an entirely impartial witness in these proceedings. ...

Helmers had also considered Mr. Robertson's sales 2, 3 and 4. They were his sales 5 and 6. ... Robertson had not considered. The net effect is that Mr. Helmers opined V-Day value (Mr. ... Helmers considered a greater section of farm land some eight miles north of the subject as at the high range. ...