Search - considered

After reading these decisions, I have concluded that the payment of $25,000 cannot be considered alimony payable periodically. ...

Taking into account the reduction of $10,000 on the original selling price of the building mentioned above, the appellant considered the value of the building to be $300,000. ...

In my view, the result is the same, and the benefit that accrues to the individual for personal use must always be considered. 8 As I have said in the Gourlay case, as well as in other decisions which have not been reported, it is my firm belief that there should be some consistency in the various taxation districts as to what the ratio of allowance is and, except in very unusual circumstances, which, on the evidence before me, I do not find to exist in this case, that allowance should, in my view, be 75% for business use and 25% for personal use. 9 I am of that opinion and, until reversed in a very clear manner, I propose to deal with this type of case on that basis. ...

It had effected substantial renovations only six years earlier at a cost of approximately $70,000. 6 Having reviewed the evidence as carefully as I could, including the exhibits, and having considered the particular circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the respondent's allocation to the building of the sum stated earlier is too high. ...

If no Reply to a Notice of Appeal has been filed within sixty days from the date on which the Registrar of the Board has transmitted the Notice of Appeal to the Minister of National Revenue, the appellant may make an application to the Registrar to have the appeal entered on the list of appeals to be called for hearing at the next sitting of the Board in the appellant's district and, upon the making of such application, no Reply shall thereafter be filed without leave of the Board. 4 It should be noted that appellant may make an application to the Registrar to have his appeal entered on the list of appeals only in cases where respondent has filed no reply to a notice of appeal within the 60-day time limit specified in the Tax Review Board Rules. 5 However, a reply to a notice of appeal by respondent will be accepted by the Board and considered valid if it is filed after the 60-day period, but before appellant makes his application to have his appeal entered on the list of appeals to be heard. 6 If appellant makes an application to have his appeal entered on the list after the specified time period has elapsed and before respondent files his reply to the notice of appeal, respondent will be informed of this by the Board, which will not accept a reply filed subsequently. ...

In addition, it was his contention that the investment income had developed from savings from his farm income and should be considered as such. ...

Had she been ninety or crippled, she might have been considered a dependent under the Act, but no evidence has been offered other than the mere fact of age. ...

Double taxation can only be considered to exist where it is equitable and/or the language of the taxing Act is clear and unequivocable. ...

However, as will be noted below, this does not have relevance in that we have rejected the approach that would be employed by “ordinary” purchasers in the market place and have considered the fact that, at the valuation date, there existed a special purchaser. ... For example, if in 1981 a sale took place to a party who can be considered a special purchaser — and that such purchaser had also been in the marketplace as a special purchaser at V-Day.’ ... To his credit, Mr Wise restricted his comments to provide for such a distinction, and I quote from page 6 of his report: The definition of fair market value also contemplates the highest price obtainable; therefore, the existence inclusion of one or more “special purchasers’’ or “special interest purchasers” in the market was considered by us. ...

Surely it could not be seriously contested that those people are residents of the United States any more than American citizens who normally reside in the United States and have cottages in Ontario or Quebec could be considered Canadian residents for income tax purposes. ... There are literally hundreds of people who are employed by American corporations who come into Canada and do business, but these people are certainly not considered to be Canadian residents or to have a permanent establishment if they attend at an office in this country to transact their business. 9 I cannot find, on the evidence before me, that this appellant ever had a permanent establishment in Canada for the purpose of carrying on his business. ...