Search - considered

Consequently, as previously mentioned, if only the Income Tax Act were to be considered, this appeal would have no merit and it would have to be dismissed. ... In addition to those two cases the respondent referred to several others which also considered the Canadian Bill of Rights. ... The result is, since I cannot allow the appeal considering the Canadian Bill of Rights, and since the appeal has no merits when only the Income Tax Act is considered, I must then dismiss the appeal. ...

Mr Wild testified that after the appointment of Mr Feehan he remained an employee of Mr Remesz and was paid by him, and that he never considered Mr Mousseau his employer. Heard as a witness, Mr Margolis corroborated Mr Wild’s testimony and added that he never considered Mr Mousseau his employer and that he had received a raise from Mr Remesz after the appointment of Mr Feehan. ... Also, Messrs Wild and Margolis testified that they were the employees of Mr Remesz and never considered Mr Mousseau as their employer. ...

In that year the sale of certain real estate provided a gain to the estate, and after making allowances considered appropriate, the Minister of National Revenue assessed the estate on the basis of a taxable capital gain of $7,256.25. ... This basis is that the appellant claims the real estate sold should be considered as a principal residence and the provision of the Income Tax Act applied dealing with a sale under such circumstances. ... Mr Smellie’s widow, Ida Muriel Smellie, had the use of the home dwelling (the real estate considered to be the subject of this appeal) until her death or remarriage under the terms of the will. ...

In reassessing the appellant, the Minister considered that the benefit received by the appellant in 1973 from the registered retirement savings plan was the difference between $5,498.52 less the amount of $2,500 paid in premiums in that year. The benefit received by the appellant from the plan in 1973 was considered to be $2,998.52 and taxable, pursuant to paragraph 56(1)(h) and subsection 146(8) of the Income Tax Act. ... Counsel for the respondent pointed out that such an expenditure is incurred only when there is some doubt as to whether a student attained a passing mark and, as such, should not be included in what is ordinarily considered as tuition fees. ...

The present issue is whether the appellant was involved in a farming operation in 1970 and whether his activities in that year can be considered as having a reasonable expectation of profit. ... I do not believe that farming operations can be considered as having started at the time the idea or the intention of farming was conceived, nor at any stage prior to the actual operations of the farm. ... I hold therefore that the appellant in 1970 was not engaged in a farming operation and the amount of $1,770.66 claimed as a farming loss was properly disallowed by the Minister and rightly considered by him as non-deductible personal or living expenses within the meaning of paragraph 139(1)(ae) of the Act. ...

Having heard the presentation of the parties and having considered the evidence adduced, I would like to restate the facts of this case as they were established at the hearing, viva voce as well as by documentary evidence, especially the Incentive Award Regulations of the Treasury Board dated March 20, 1969, as amended under date of April 29, 1971. ... This work, which had no direct connection with his official duties as an RCMP officer, was brought to the attention of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which considered this extraordinary performance “beyond what could normally be expected by management” sufficient reason to recommend the appellant for a special award under the Federal Merit Award Programme. ... In the present case, the interest of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police could therefore be considered implied when the department head recommended an award for the appellant. ...

Counsel therefore contended that the granting of the mortgage by the mother transferred a real right in property to the children, and within the meaning of the Act is to be considered as property. ... In my opinion, the assignment of the mortgage to the children cannot be considered as payment for work already done by them on the farm, nor can it be considered as compensation for having the children continue to operate the farm after the father’s illness because there is no relationship whatsoever between the work done, or to be done, by each of the children and the length of time which will be required to do the work on the farm and the value of the mortgage. ...

This agreement might conceivably have been considered as an indication of value and could have been useful in arriving at a fair market value of the appellant’s property on December 31, 1971, had it been accompanied by other comparable sales and other factors normally considered in such evaluations. ... It was contended by the appellant that what was being considered here was an agricultural lot and that 10 acres and 500 ft frontage were necessary for the appellant’s use and enjoyment of her principal residence. Counsel did not explain however why the lot should be considered agricultural or why 10 acres of surrounding land were necessry to the appellant’s use and enjoyment of the principal residence. ...

The penalties of 25% of the evaded income tax are also still at issue. 3.2 The Agency case The sums of $25,600 for the year 1970 and $3,000 for the year 1971 are considered by the respondent to be income not declared by the Agency. ... These sums were considered loans from Mr Lemaire to the Agency. In December 1969 loans from Mr Lemaire to the Agency totaled $33,000 in the receipts journal. ... Even if the Board had only Mr Lemaire’s testimony that the amount given to him by Mr Miller was a gift for services rendered (par 4.09 on which to base its decision, the “gift” would still be considered income for Mr Lemaire. ...

There only remains to examine the one point stressed by counsel for the respondent in making the case that it should be considered income from an active business—that the treatment of the funds available to the appellant by holding them in short-term deposits, quickly available, was an integral part of the appellant’s operations. ... It is not in the business of investment, insurance, loans, securities; nor can it be in any way considered as a financial institution. ... In my view, while the term “essential” used by counsel for the appellant may be somewhat extreme, to be considered “integral” the specific function under review should form a necessary part of the whole operation. ...