Search - considered

Should the sum of $17,285 (or rather $11,925, since $5,360 has been admitted (para 3.39)) be considered additional income? ... If someone buys 500 suits and sells them at a profit, the profit is considered to be income. ... On the other hand, some objects are considered a priori to be long-term investments by their nature. ...

The assessment was made on the basis that the claimed deductions of $2,618.45 allegedly incurred by the appellant were considered by the Minister as being a deduction from income and constituted personal or living expenses. ... In 1975 he went to the local Co-Op, attempting to ascertain the situation with respect to what he considered a final payment and at that time was told that he had been paid $432 in January for his full shipment of 12 tons of pears. ... Shortly after the municipal assessor approached the appellant, advising him that in that all the trees had been knocked down, his land could no longer be considered as farm land and would be taxed at a higher tax rate as residential property. ...

Further, by Notification of Confirmation, the Minister stated as follows: The Honourable the Minister of National Revenue having reconsidered the assessment and having considered the facts and reasons set forth in the Notice of Objection hereby confirms the said assessment as having been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in particular on the ground that there was no bona fide acquisition or disposition of the Government of Canada Bonds. ... Facts The appellant was employed by the Montreal Trust Company and stated quite clearly in his evidence that he purchased certain Government of Canada Bonds in 1975, availing himself of what he considered a “tax loophole”, and as a “tax dodge”. ... Where there is no evidence of physical registration or delivery, the appeal will be dismissed; where such registration or delivery is asserted by virtue of a trustee or agency relationship, then that will be considered only if it is established that no impediment, including payment, remained to pro- hibit such registration or transfer to the individual appellant. ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 2026, 78 DTC 1066 Roland St-Onge (orally: December 8, 1977):—The appeal of Mr F W Beyer came before me on December 8, 1977 at the City of Ottawa, Ontario and the issue is whether the appellant’s racing activities in 1974 can be considered as the carrying out of a business with a reasonable expectation of profit. ... Finally he quit car racing because he was told by the Department of National Revenue that such activity could not be considered as a business activity or enterprise. ... The facts before me are sufficient to allow me to decide that this type of activity can in no way whatsoever be considered as a business. ...

Counsel for the respondent had notified the agent for the appellants on October 8, 1976 of the position of the Minister and in the same letter counsel did suggest that, since there were provisions under the Income Tax Act for applications to be made to the Tax Review Board under section 167 for an extension of time, that course might be considered by the appellants. ... Counsel made the point that “instituted’’ should be considered as meaning “filed with’’ or “received by” the Tax Review Board. ... The appeals, in so far as the Board is concerned, are considered as having been instituted on September 10, 1976, which is the date they were mailed to the Tax Review Board. ...

SUMMERLAND RESEARCH STATION AGRICULTURE CANADA, SUMMERLAND, BC ISSUED BY: NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL DIVISION DIVISION CONSEIL NATIONAL DE RECHERCHES OTTAWA, K1A 0R6 OTHER INCOME (Box H) $7,249.99 INCOME TAX DEDUCTED (Box I) $1,362.50 PDF STIPEND — BOURSES DE RECHERCHES POST-DOCTORALES (NRC) The notice of appeal reads in part as follows: 1) I paid income tax on my “income" at the same rate as any other taxpayer and therefore I should have the right, as a taxpayer. to put money into a RRSP. 2) If my fellowship is not considered an “income" then I should have the “income tax" paid on those monies refunded. 3) When fellowships became subject to income tax in the late 1960’s it was, in my opinion, an oversight that fellowships did not become listed with the “earned incomes’’ of paragraph 146(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. ... Dealing with the three points raised in the notice of appeal, the Board notes for the record that she did not pay tax on the income at the same rate as any other taxpayer—she was allowed a tax free portion of $500; she should not be entitled to a refund of the income tax paid—because that would constitute a basis for taxing only income considered as earned, rather than all income-^ including fellowships, grants, etc; and while it may be considered an oversight by the appellant that the amount in question is not “earned income” for income tax purposes, it is that way in the Act, and the Board is not empowered to make any change. ...

The company needed money for the proposed expansion of its operation and plans for the financing of the project were considered. ... Convertible debentures were considered by the company’s financial advisers as being at that time less popular with the public than shares. ... At that time the stock prices were declining in the United States and the company would have received only $13 per share which was considered an insufficient return. ...

They (counsel) submitted that the evidence in the present case had not shown that the owner of the horse had so organized her activities that they constituted an enterprise of a commercial character and consequently, her racing gains for the years in question could not be considered as income. ... For this reason, purses won by a racehorse cannot be considered as income from a business except in exceptional circumstances showing that the owner of the horse had so organized his activities that he was in fact conducting an enterprise of a commercial character. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances having been proved, I conclude that the appellant cannot be considered as having been, during the years under consideration, in the business of racing horses for profit and that, therefore, his racing gains during these years were not income. ...

Early in 1970 Eastech Limited was sold and the new owners required the appellant's services on a full-time basis at the Eastech Plant which forced the appellant to wind up Eastech Newfoundland Limited. 6 The appellant, on the basis of the salary he received from Eastech Limited for comparable work, considered that he should have received from Eastech Newfoundland Limited a salary of $11,000 a year and applying a 50% income tax rate to the level of salary he should have received, he claimed in his 1973 tax return a loss of $11,000 for the 1968 and 1969 taxation years which was eventually disallowed by the Minister. 7 In determining whether or not the $11,000 was deductible, it must first be considered whether the appellant sustained a loss. ... The amount of $5,898.26 paid to Mrs M G Gramlewicz, the appellant's wife, which appears in Exhibit R-1, can in no way be considered as a salary to her as claimed by the appellant. All the evidence confirms that no salary was in fact payable by Eastech Newfoundland Limited to the appellant nor to the appellant's wife and therefore, in my opinion, no loss of salary can now be claimed by him or by Mrs Gramlewicz. 9 Although it may be true that the appellant put into Eastech Newfoundland Limited considerable effort and time, it is also true, as suggested by counsel for the respondent, that a missed opportunity cannot for income tax purposes be considered as the source of a deductible loss. 10 In my opinion, the deduction of $11,000 claimed by the appellant in the 1968 and 1969 taxation years is not a loss within the meaning of the Income Tax Act and is therefore not deductible. 11 As to the second issue, the appellant notes that in the Minister's assessment of May 1974 of the appellant's 1973 taxation return an overpayment by the taxpayer of $5,787.42 was indicated and a cheque for that amount was received by the appellant from the Department of National Revenue. ...

In deciding the appeal of Edward Djoboulian, the Board accepted certain capital receipts from Egypt as being part of his financial resources which it considered as constituting part of his capital assets as at December 31, 1973. These same capital receipts cannot now be considered as also constituting part of the appellant’s capital assets as at that date. ...