Search - considered

The issue is whether the Finch property at the time of its sale by the appellant can be considered as a principal residence within the meaning of paragraph 54(g). Paragraph 54(g) reads: In this subdivision, (g) “principal residence” of a taxpayer for a taxation year means a housing unit, a leasehold interest therein, or a share of the capital stock of a co-operative housing corporation, owned, whether jointly with another person or otherwise, in the year by the taxpayer, if the housing unit was, or if the share was acquired for the sole purpose of acquiring the right to inhabit a housing unit owned by the corporation that was, (i) ordinarily inhabited in the year by the taxpayer, his spouse or former spouse, or a child of the taxpayer who, during the year, was wholly dependent upon him for support and was a person described in subparagraph 109(1)(d)(i), (ii) or (iii), or (ii) property in respect of which the taxpayer has made an election for the year in accordance with subsection 45(2), except that, subject to section 54.1, in no case shall any such housing unit, interest or share, as the case may be, be considered to be a taxpayer’s principal residence for a year (iii) unless it has been designated by him in prescribed manner to be his principal residence for that year and no other property has been so designated by him for that year, or (iv) by virtue of subparagraph (ii), if by virtue of that subparagraph the property would, but for this subparagraph, have been his principal residence for 4 or more previous taxation years, and for the purposes of this paragraph the “principal residence” of a taxpayer for a taxation year shall be deemed to include, except where the property consists of a share of the capital stock of a co-operative housing corporation, the land subjacent to the housing unit and such portion of any immediately contiguous land as may reasonably be regarded as contributing to the taxpayer’s use and enjoyment of the housing unit as a residence, except that where the total area of the subjacent land and of that portion exceeds one acre, the excess shall be deemed not to have contributed to the individual’s use and enjoyment of the housing unit as a residence unless the taxpayer establishes that it was necessary to such use and enjoyment: There is no question that up until 1969, the Finch property had been acquired and was the appellant’s principal residence. ...

The fishing almanac is considered by Mr Barnard as an important publication for tourists and the information it is to contain on the weather, the feeds, the birds and the movement of fish can only be obtained by actual experience, recording data and photographing from a boat. The boat chosen for the purpose is a 23-foot all-weather boat, considered as a commercial boat by the vendors, and used by such agencies as the police and coast guards. ...

On the contrary, it would appear that it was the result of a carefully considered plan executed as conceived. ... It is equally well established that even a single operation entered into for gain takes a business character when it cannot properly be considered as an investment but it is to be characterized as a speculation. ...

Consequently the hatching of chicks does not fall under that definition and cannot be considered livestock raising. In the second case, “raising of poultry”, this expression implies that the farmer would keep the baby chicks for a while in order to have a farm product which comes under the definition of poultry; that can be considered as raising poultry because the farmer has to operate or act as such to increase the weight and size of the chicks to render them a marketable product. ...

The words “absolute and indefeasible” have been considered in a number of cases. ... In the case at bar, the words used — “for the advancement, maintenance, education or benefit of any infant” — are little more than a suggestion to look after the children in a natural way, and cannot be considered to deprive the widow of a tax benefit simply because they happened to be used in the will. ...

I must therefore conclude that the appellant’s stock dealings cannot be considered investments. ... Nevertheless, it is perhaps pertinent in the circumstances of this case to add that, since the profits made by the appellant have been held to be taxable as business income, it follows that all losses subsequently suffered by the appellant and arising out of similar transactions should also be considered by the respondent as business losses, and the appellant should be allowed all deductions of pertinent losses to which it is entitled under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. ...

However, I do not believe that, by choosing an arbitrary markdown figure of 20% of cost in evaluating his year-end inventory, as Mr O’Boyle admitted doing, he is complying with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. lt may be that Mr O'Boyle's long-established practice of basing the value of his inventory on a 20% markdown is considered to be, for accounting purposes, an acceptable method, since the consistency of Mr O’Boyle’s valuation of his inventory would not abnormally distort his profit and loss statement from one year to another. ... Nor, for the same reason, can such a 20% markdown of the cost price in evaluating the appellant’s inventory be considered as the lesser of cost or fair market value pursuant to subsection 14(2) of the Income Tax Act. ...

It seems to me that there is a great lack of communication between district taxation offices on what should be considered allowable to professional people for business use of their private automobiles. ... There is no question whatsoever that, regardless of the state of the equipment in question, the typewriters and lamps are what are normally considered capital assets. ...

By analogy, the appellant could have considered subdividing his own lands and making a more substantial profit thereon, a course which he did not follow. 11 The appellant at the present time, and for some years prior to the hearing, has ceased residential construction and has been employed by another construction firm as a superintendent of commercial construction. 12 In reviewing his evidence, and having regard to his demeanour on the stand, I cannot conclude this man was a trader at any time. ... The question of one isolated transaction has been considered by this Board, its predecessor and our Courts on numerous occasions, and it is a question of fact whether or not a particular transaction is or is not a venture in the nature of trade within the meaning of the Income Tax Act. ...

It is an admitted accounting principle that a reduction of an expense must be considered as income. 4.3 Respondent’s Contention According to the respondent, if an alimony for the one who receives it is a right, then it is an obligation for the one who has to pay it. ... If the alimony is considered as an expense by the Income Tax Act, it is not in virtue of the basic principle expressed in paragraph 18(1)(a) (which is a general accounting principle) but because it is expressed in a specific article (paragraph 60(b) of the new Act). ...