Search - considered

Its approach to it was unusual and might even be considered bizarre but, in total, Schedule A which deals with the item at issue is a rather reasonably detailed statement, as I read the information. ...

Those personal consequences, when considered with the act made and the type of business carried on, are only a secondary consideration. ...

Each case must be decided on its own facts and though counsel for the respondent cited Wonsch Construction Limited v MNR, [1968] Tax ABC 1009; 68 DTC 727, a decision of R S W Fordham, Esq, QC, as a case that might be considered as being on all fours with the appeal before me, I choose not to follow it because I am satisfied with the evidence before me that the appellant’s intention ab initio was to establish a lasting investment which was frustrated by the most peculiar and rapid increase in building activity and construction costs. ...

It is well established that, for purposes of the Minister’s 1976 assessments, the respondent considered the second Ennismore house to be part of the appellants’ (partnership) inventory and was treated as such by him. ...

This in the Appellant’s view was completely unthinkable as he considered that his own business reputation was at stake, and that in the absence of any other, it was his sole responsibility to ensure that the students with whom Ships School had contracted could complete their tour and be returned safely to Canada on the date stipulated. ...

The arguments made by the respondent with respect to the periodicity of payments, the delays in which payments can be properly considered periodic and that such payments need only be payable and not necessarily paid on a periodic basis are not pertinent to the issue. ...

It was considered to be in a general building zone although, because it was being used as a trailer court, it was designated “T” as to conform with the use to which it was presently being used. ...

As a result, the transfers are not allowable to a deduction pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows: 18. (1) In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or property no deduction shall be made in respect of (a) an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business or property; Furthermore, the said transfers could not be considered a bad debt within the meaning of paragraph 20(1)(p) of the Act which reads as follows: 20. (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), (b) and (h), in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from a business or property, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to the source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto: (p) the aggregate of debts owing to the taxpayer (i) that are established by him to have become bad debts in the year, and (ii) that have (except in the case of debts arising from loans made in the ordinary course of business by a taxpayer part of whose ordinary business was the lending of money) been included in computing his income for the year or a previous year; From all the evidence before me, I hold that the debt owed to the appellant by the related companies arose from an advance of capital to them and that such loans, or shall I say the supplying of capital by way of inventory, by the appellant, was not made for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property and, in consequence thereof, the loss arising from the related companies which failed to pay the appellant for the transfers of inventory is deemed to be nil by virtue of subparagraph 40(2)(g)(ii) which reads: 40. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), (g) a taxpayer’s loss, if any, from the disposition of a property, to the extent that it is (ii) a loss from the disposition of a debt or other right to receive an amount, unless the debt or right, as the case may be, was acquired by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property (other than exempt income) or as consideration for the disposition of capital property to a person with whom the taxpayer was dealing at arm’s length, See North West Tent & Awning Co Ltd v MNR, [1976] CTC 2332; 76 DTC 1227. ...

I cannot see, on the basis of the evidence, how Mr Mulvihill or indeed the applicant’s legal counsel can be considered directly or indirectly responsible for the applicant’s failure to file his Notices on time in the circumstances. ...

I am not certain that would be a point to be considered fatal to his case — because it would raise a question regarding the length of service necessary before a resignation would be effective as retirement. ...