Search - considered

The relevant section of the Act to be considered is subsection 74(5) which reads as follows: (5) Where a husband and wife were partners in a business, the income of one spouse from the business for a taxation year may, in the discretion of the Minister, be deemed to belong to the other spouse. ... I have considered the following cases cited by counsel for the appellant: Sv S (1952), 5 WWR 523; Nemeth v Nemeth (1967), 64 DLR (2d) 377; Warm v Warm (1969), 70 WWR 207. ...

If anything, the $7,416 average might be considered high in his opinion since the method and statistics he used had been as favourable as possible to the appellant. ... There was every indication by the industry forecasts that the company could easily expect to return from the 1970 and 1971 lowered levels of profits to those he considered standard and applicable shown in the results of 1968 and 1969. ...

In applying the principles enunciated by Mr Justice Rand in the Thompson case (supra) to the facts of the present appeal, which are admittedly unusual, I must come to the conclusion that, for tax purposes, the appellants must be considered as residents of Canada. ... Their daily presence and regular attendance at their place of work in Canada cannot, in my opinion, be considered simply as visits. ...

There was no dispute with respect to the income and tax assessed for the other years as the opening inventory and accounts receivable as well as accounts payable were considered. ... It too must be considered as an asset. In the result, judgment will go allowing the appeal for 1973 and remitting the assessment to the respondent for reassessment to include as opening assets, accounts receivable of $2,000 and inventory of $26,000 on his reassessment on a net worth basis. ...

The lump sum of $8,000 was paid in the 1976 taxation year “on account of amounts payable periodically that were due after the date of the order (February 3, 1975) and had fallen into arrears ($4,000 for 1975 and $4,000 for 1976)”; it should therefore be considered a periodic payment; 8.6. “The specific wording in the order” cited in paragraph 6.3 above shows that these payments can properly be considered ‘periodic’ under paragraph 60(b) of the Income Tax Act since: 8.6.1. the total sum of $8,000 is subject to regular payments of $4,000 per year and, according to the judgment mentioned above, “is an allowance for the purpose of the support and maintenance” of the former spouse of the appellant; 8.6.2 “each regular payment is consistent with that purpose” and 8.6.3. ...

By registered letter dated April 6, 1973, Mr Kassirer of the firm Spencer, Romberg, Kassirer, Barkin & Esbin, acting on behalf of Mr Liebeck, advised the appelant that his share of the balance was $97,475 and unless the amount was received by April 10, 1973, the appellant would be considered as being no longer interested in the project and Mr Liebeck and Mr Huning would complete the transaction without the appellant (Tab 4). ... It appears from the correspondence that the appellant was considered by Messrs Liebeck and Huning as reluctant in paying his share of the purchase price and they were indeed anxious to exclude the appellant from the transaction. ...

Since the Income Tax Act does contain a definition of the word “child” (subsection 252(1) specifies certain persons to be a child of the taxpayer, but does not deal with the definition of a child), the word must be considered to take its ordinary meaning. ... As a general rule a word is to be considered as used throughout a statute in the same sense. ...

—There is some evidence that legal action was considered or commenced by the appellant against Holdings. ... I have already expressed the view that on the basis of the evidence available to the Board, a claim against Holdings for damages arising out of the termination of the contract, or in lieu of proper notice, might well have been considered by the appellant. ...

In claiming that the loss he sustained ought to be considered a loss from an employment or business under the Income Tax Act on the ground that the transaction had been ‘‘an adventure or concern in the nature of trade” (subsection 248(1)), not only is the defendant trying to disprove facts regularly assumed by the Minister when making the assessment* [2] but his contention goes against what can be accepted as being “normal” and readily believable. ... It is well settled that, under exceptional and unusual circumstances, an isolated venture can be considered as a business and the acquisition of shares in a company may be a trading operation!. ...

The statute-barred years for reassessment were 1967, 1968 and 1969 and accordingly counsel for the respondent led evidence in the first instance to determine whether the reassessment for the said years ought to be permitted and considered by the Board. ... Accordingly I rule on the evidence that the respondent has discharged the onus herein and was entitled to go beyond the statutory limitation period and the assessment ought to be considered. ...