Search - considered

He also stated that the city made an offer that he considered insufficient and consequently refused it; that the city should have bought his farm because it was cheaper than other lands it acquired. ... Counsel for appellant terminated by saying that the appraiser for the respondent should have used the F & M property as a comparable to appraise the appellant’s farm because the property should not be considered as agricultural but as commercial land for its appraisal on V-Day. ...

Presumably it has not been considered adequate by the Department. A letter of opinion (in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Circular) was not obtained by the taxpayer, but two offers to purchase were filed with the Board. These were not considered acceptable by the Department since they contained conditions required by the interested purchaser. ...

On my 1975 taxes, I submitted what I considered legitimate expenses and they were disallowed. ... A trip from his home to his employer’s work site is not considered to fall within that subsection and, as the Board knows, there are several decisions. ...

The Board considered as being proven in its entirety the following subparagraphs of paragraph 6 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal: a) the Appellant is a land developer who through companies and partnerships in which he and his brother and their respective wives hold interests has been involved in the business of construction and sale of residential properties; b) the Appellant and his brother David Welton, each have a 50% interest in the following companies; Welton Limited; Welglen Limited; Rivergate Limited; the Appellant was president of Welton Limited; c) Joan Welton, the wife of the Appellant is the beneficial owner of all of the shares of Zebulon Limited; Iva Welton, the wife of the Appellant’s brother, David is the beneficial owner of all of the shares of Roton Limited; Zebulon and Roton have formed a corporate partnership under the name of Zebro Estates which is a land owning company; d) by Deed dated June 14, 1966 the- Appellant through his wife acquired a parcel of land in a subdivision development in Mississauga for $5,000 from Rogerswood Estates a corporate partnership in which the wives of the Appellant and his brother were partners; Welton Limited constructed a house on the property for the Appellant at the cost price to Welton Limited; the Appellant and his wife and family lived there for approximately two years; e) by Deed dated October 24, 1968 and registered November 5, 1968 the Appellant sold this property in an arm’s length transaction for $55,250; the Appellant treated the gain made on the sale as a Capital gain; f) by Deed dated October 29, 1968, the Appellant through his wife acquired from Welton Limited another piece of land in Mississauga on which a house had been constructed by Welton Limited. ... He sold it because 1) it was in the midst of sixty other houses; 2) the neighbours who bought the houses from the company were always asking for something or complaining about the houses; 3) they were considered as second-class citizens and his wife could not stand that anymore. ...

Counsel for the Crown, while not accepting the Bryce decision, said with respect to that decision, it appears that two positions were not submitted to the Board or, if they were, it would appear that they were not considered. ... In addition, the Bryce case does not indicate a consideration of the word “periodic” in section 60.1 in that the payments therein have to be at least “periodic” to be deductible and the type of payment disallowed in the appeal was of the type considered in the Weaver case by the Federal Court of Appeal. ...

The appellant submitted that case law has established that the exercise of effective control by a group, whether or not they have legal control, is a question of fact which must be considered in determining which group controlled the corporations for purposes of paragraph 39(4)(b) of the Act. ... Referring to Yardley Plastics of Canada Limited v MNR, [1966] CTC 215; 66 DTC 5183, Mr Justice Addy at 222 and 6211 respectively stated: It appears clear in this latter case that the question is first and foremost one of fact and that it is indeed de facto control that must be considered. ... In that case Mr Justice Noel statd at 233 and 5188 respectively: The appellant’s second submission is that under section 39(4)(b) for the purposes of association, where corporations are controlled by the same group of persons, this group must have the right to effectively control the corporations and if it does not then it cannot be considered as the group contemplated in the section. ...

However, the $15,075 not allowed for was not in any way considered collectible by G I Norbraten Architect Limited and, accordingly, should not have been included in taxable income. 11. ... Whether that calculation is proper, the Board need not determine under the circumstances of this case — that is not the point to be considered at this time. ... According to counsel for the Minister, considering the payment period available to the debtor company, the amount could not even be considered overdue by that date. ...

They are the kind of signs for which the expenses under appeal are claimed; (b) the appellant considered that kind of advertising as being the same as television advertising. ... As advertising physical signs are commonly used in business, and as the legislator provides in the regulations for capital cost allowance of 35% for electrical advertising signs and outdoor advertising poster panels when used to earn rental income (Class II), therefore, since in the instant case, the illuminated signs are made to last many years and the electric scoreboards are under a 10-year contract with another 10-year option, it is my commonsense appreciation to conclude that the advertising physical signs must be considered as bringing into existence an advantage for an enduring benefit. ... The exceptions do not include advertising signs so they fall in this class. 4.03.4 According to the tax specialist witness (para 3.05(b)) the physical signs cannot be considered to have enduring benefit because “tomorrow Pepsi-Cola may suddenly be determined to be a cancer causing agent, and no one would buy the product any more”. ...

It is the respondent’s submission that although the appellant was engaged in farming which did have a reasonable expectation of profit, it was a sideline business whose profit was not sufficient to be considered as the appellant’s chief source of income nor was it in combination with some other source of income or the appellant’s chief source of income in 1974, the taxation year under appeal. ... It also provides, as I see it, basic principles on which more marginal facts can also be legally considered. ... I do not think that one can rightly conclude that a taxpayer does not look to farming as his chief source of income on the sole basis that the profit from farming is not sufficiently high to be considered as chief source in the year under appeal as suggested by counsel for the respondent. ...

Gunter Gahrns v Her Majesty the Queen, [1978] CTC 651; 78 DTC 6436. 4.3 Comments 4.3.1 The amount of $31,579 received by the appellant from Pan-Abode is considered by the parties: (a) aS an income, because it is a receipt for past services or a profit from a business (an adventure of the nature of trade); or (b) as a taxable capital gain; or, (c) a non-taxable receipt on account of capital. 4.3.2 The $31,579, an income? ... Indeed, it is of no significance that the appellant received the income in a different way from that first contemplated: as finder’s fee paid by the shareholders or Pan-Abode, or later by the Capozzi family for staying “out of the picture”; (e) The amount of $45,000 received by the appellant from Mr Hecht was considered as non-taxable by the respondent, $7,457 of the amount of $31,579, must be considered as a receipt on account of capital and non- taxable and the remaining $24,122 must be considered as income from an adventure in the nature of trade. 5. ...