Search - considered

He said that on July 3, 1979 he had considered claims of the taxpayer for its 1972 and 1973 taxation years, with respect to capital cost allowance, for the first and only time. ... Mr Wolfe said that he did not think that the claim for capital cost allowance had been considered by the Deputy Minister of Finance. ... It follows that the first assessment of July 1974, which reflected the capital cost allowance Claimed by the taxpayer must, on the one hand, be considered to have incorporated a decision of the Minister or, on the other hand, be considered to have been either wrong, or void, or both, as having granted an allowance for capital costs without a decision of the Minister. ...

The assessor considered that a 4% administration fee of $5,960 would not be unreasonable. ... He was unable to envisage one and considered that these shares, then, had no more than a break-up value. ...

That subject was considered in 1867 to be outside the enacting jurisdiction. ... The second question raises an alternative argument to the argument considered on the first question. ... He continued at 721: In their Lordships’ opinion, the terms of this section, which is very similar to that considered in Lovitt’s case, clearly show that the subject-matter of the taxation is the property and not the transmission of property; it is in marked contrast to the terms of the Quebec section considered in the cases of Lambe and Alleyn. ...

I respectfully agree with that reasoning with reference to subsection 238(1) of the Income Tax Act, but when regard is had for the provisions of subsection 231(3) of the Act, it is not clear that Parliament intended that the Minister, having laid a charge for failure to comply with a demand pursuant to that subsection, and having obtained a conviction, was at liberty to make a fresh demand and upon failure to comply with that fresh demand to then lay a charge and obtain a conviction for failure to comply with that fresh demand, When the penalty provided in subsection 238(2) of the Act is considered in relation to a failure to comply with a demand pursuant to subsection 231(3) in my opinion the type of penalty provided in that subsection indicates that Parliament intended that the penalty be imposed only once for failure to comply with a demand pursuant to subsection 231(3). The amount provided of between $200 and $10,000 does not indicate to me that Parliament intended that the Minister be able to repeatedly make the demand if the taxpayer failed to comply with the first demand, and then when subparagraph (b) is considered, that in addition to a maximum fine of $10,000 a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months is provided, I am of the view that Parliament did not intend that the taxpayer be open to continued demands by the Minister and the imposition of continued penalties of that magnitude. ...

The question, therefore, which we have to determine, 1s, whether the sums paid as rent and by way of royalty, in the circumstances above recited, under options to purchase which have not yet expired, can properly be considered as falling within the language hereinbefore quoted. ... It could be upon the happening of a future contingency only that they would be considered as part of the purchase-money. ...

The property is locally held and within the purview of the Act here being considered is personally consumed and the tax is imposed (sec. 2) upon "‘every person who consumes any fuel-oil in the Province.” ... In my opinion the Act to be considered here is plainly a tax upon personal property and is a direct tax. ... While usually the result of a judicial decision should not be considered as decisive yet in determining division of authority under the B.N.A. ...

The Minister also gave notice to the petitioners that it might reasonably be considered that collection of the amounts assessed would be jeopardized by delay in collection and he demanded payment forthwith of the amounts claimed in the assessments. Subsection 225.2(1) of the Income Tax Act provides: 225.2 (1) Collection in jeopardy. — Notwithstanding section 225.1, where it may reasonably be considered that collection of an amount assessed in respect of a taxpayer would be jeopardized by a delay in the collection thereof, and the Minister has, by notice served personally or by registered letter addressed to the taxpayer at his latest known address, so advised the taxpayer and directed the taxpayer to pay forthwith the amount assessed or any part thereof, the Minister may forthwith take any of the actions described in paragraphs 225.1 (1)(a) to (g) with respect to that amount or that part thereof. ...

After having considered the application made by the Director of Special Investigations based on the affidavit of Vernon Robert Milley, I hereby approve of the above authorization, which approval is also indicated on the preceding page by my initials. ... This distinction between “powers” and “duties” was considered in a similar context by the Privy Council in Mungoni v Attorney General of Northern Rhodesia, [1960] AC 336. ...

., the trial judge, considered the effect of the various decisions, and said at p. 526n: “These decisions establish that the courts of our country will not enforce the revenue claims of a foreign country in a suit brought for the purpose by a foreign public authority or the representative of such an authority, and that, even if a judgment for a foreign penalty or debt be obtained in the country 1 in which it is incurred, it is not possible successfully to sue in this country on such judgment. ... And at p. 527n said: “Those cases on penalties would seem to establish that it is: not the form of the action or the nature of the plaintiff that- must be considered, but the substance of the right sought to be enforced; and that if the enforcement of such right would even indirectly involve the execution of the penal law of another State, then the claim must be refused. 1 cannot see why the same rule should not prevail where it appears that the enforcement of the right claimed would indirectly involve the execution of the revenue law of another State, and serve a revenue demand.” ...

This to my mind indicates that the broker is not to be considered as the seller but merely the agent for bringing about the sale. ... No doubt amendments at times are made out of abundance of caution but they cannot be considered by the Courts. ...