Search - considered

The respondent considered the amounts allocated to be neither reasonable nor fair market values for the properties in question and reallocated the said values pursuant to paragraph 20(6)(g) of the Income Tax Act. ... The capitalization rate used was 7% and the remaining economic life of the building was considered to be 50 years or a return of capital at the rate of 2%. ... The income approach, used by the assessor on the request of the appellant and concurred in by the respondent, was not considered by the Board. ...

He pre sumably learned that $30,000.00 was actually paid in 1969 and considered it an expense for that year. ... Before a bonus can be considered as an integral part of salary and a deductible expense, it must, in my view, meet certain criteria. ... Although there are, no doubt, other applicable criteria, it would seem to me that bonuses that do not meet these criteria would simply be a profit-sharing arrangement having no connection with the earning of income and would therefore not be considered as deductible outlays or expenses. ...

Moreover, how can a licence which by statute is essentially temporary in nature, and the property of the Crown to boot, be considered as an enduring advantage in the nature of a capital asset to licence holders? ... Subsection 56(1) of the same Regulations requires, in addition to these $10 fees, which are annually recurring expenses and should be considered operational expenditures, the licensee to pay another fee based on the amount of liquor, wine and beer sold by the licensee in his establishment. ... In this way, the licence fees are matched with the revenue which the business has generated during a given period and should therefore in my opinion for income tax purposes be considered expenditures on revenue account. ...

The appellant, by letter dated May 28, 1975, addressed to the Board, advised that in view of the amount involved it was not practical for its representative to appear before the Board and requested that Its written submission be. considered in support of its appeal. ... On 31st July, 1972, the Appellant elected by virtue of Section 196(1) of the Income Tax Act, to pay a 15% tax of $309.62 on $2,064.15, which it considered was its undistributed Income on hand at the end of Its 1971 fiscal period. 2. ...

Though one may understand and sympathize with the difficult circumstances in which the appellant found himself after May 1968, these difficulties cannot be considered as damages for which the Board of Governors could be held legally responsible and, more important, they are not the reasons for which the Board of Governors paid the appellant the equivalent of one year’s salary. In my opinion the facts of this appeal indicate clearly that the Board of Governors, because of its disagreement with the appellant, decided to dismiss the latter on the spot and pay him a certain amount in lieu of “notice of termination of employment” which was considered to be reasonable. ...

In my opinion the net payment was in full satisfaction of the order of the Court, and its constituent elements in so far as they relate to income, and not to capital, could possibly have come within the mean- ing of paragraph 11(1)(l) of the Income Tax Act, but the order reads “such payments to commence on the first day of March, 1968’’ which effectively destroys any possibility of these payments being considered as advances for income tax purposes. As the said order was not issued until December 20, 1968 and the 1968 payments were prior thereto, the payments cannot be considered as coming within the language of the said paragraph 11 (1)(l) of the Act. ...

Where an individual was resident in Canada during part of a taxation year, and during some other part of the year was not resident in Canada, was not employed in Canada and was not carrying on business in Canada for the purpose of this Part his taxable income for the taxation year is the aggregate of (a) his income for the period or periods in the year during which he was resident in Canada, was employed in Canada or was carrying on business inCanada, computed as though such period or periods were the whole taxation year and as though any disposition of property deemed by subsection 48(1) to have been made by virtue of the taxpayers having ceased to be resident in Canada were made in such period or periods, and (b) the amount that would be his taxable income earned in Canada for the year if at no time in the year he had been resident in Canada, computed as though the portion of the year that is not in the period or periods referred to in paragraph (a) were the whole taxation year, minus the aggregate of such of the deductions from income permitted for the purpose of computing taxable income as may reasonably be considered wholly applicable to the period or periods referred to in paragraph (a) and of such part of any other of the said deductions as may reasonably be considered applicable to such period or periods. ... The basis for this is a portion of the concluding phrase of section 114: “minus the aggregate of such of the deductions from income permitted for the purpose of computing taxable income as may reasonably be considered wholly applicable to the period or periods referred to in paragraph (a).. ... His further submission was that the concluding portion of section 114, namely, “and of such part of any other of the said deductions as may reasonably be considered applicable to such period or periods”, refers to deductions from income to compute taxable income—Division C deductions. ...

He tried selling real estate for a short while, did not like it, and decided to go back to farming — Finch was considered appropriate for that purpose. ... In summary, counsel concluded that even though Mr Moubray had shown an interest in real estate (acquiring a licence), this should not be a negative factor to be considered — there was considerable available jurisprudence on this. ... The amount of profit on Peachland is to be considered on capital account. ...

However, the other horses sold to the company were considered part of the inventory and not capital property. ... Consequently, the animals must be considered as a stock in trade and the sale price as income. ... Should it not be normal that the two stallions be considered as capital property? ...

The expropriation referred to in paragraph 4 above did not involve any activity by or on behalf of the Appellant and accordingly the income arising from such sale cannot be considered to be income from an active business within the meaning of paragraph 125(1)(a) and subparagraph 129(4)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. ... An average of three sales per year cannot, in my opinion, be considered as an active business within the meaning of section 125. The appellant’s only other income was rent from the lease of an industrial building which, as I understand it, was considered by the Minister as income from an inactive business. ...