Search - considered

As the appellant pointed out, if we interpret the word “assumed” to mean “deemed”, which latter word according to many decisions of the Tax Review Board means “conclusively considered”, then several words of the subsection are redundant. ...

Another point to be considered is that if the decree had not provided specifically that the taxes payable by the wife would be reimbursed by the appellant, his wife would nonetheless have had to pay them out of the sum of $1,800 received monthly. ...

Furthermore, as stated in the case cited and following a careful examination of subsections 110(1) and (5), once a non-resident has chosen to pay tax under subsection 110(1), he is considered to be a Canadian resident. ...

The respondent had, in 1972, considered the appellant to be a non-resident and had therefore not taxed him on the grants he had received. 3.17. ...

The appellant alleged that even though he cannot be considered to be at fault at any stage of these transactions, the Minister’s assessment dated August 5, 1975 caused him significant and serious injury. ...

The $3,139.33 was claimed by the said estate as expenses in 1974, but was disallowed as such by the respondent, who. considered it to be income of the estate and added it to the appellant’s personal income for that year. ...

Counsel for the respondent held out that in addition to disallowing amounts of either entertainment and promotion (a), automobile expenses (b), or telephone (f) for which no bills were available, the assessor had the responsibility to also determine if the amounts charged were “reasonable”, particularly when considered against the total commission income earned—and it had been his judgment that the further arbitrary disallowances were in order. ...

Counsel for the respondent argued that there was no formal appraisal prepared by the appellant; that a few statements of opinion by Mr Nesbitt did not provide a sufficiently strong basis on which to appraise the building and claim a terminal loss; that the said building was specifically erected for use by Foremost and had a specific value to it; and that the ratio was too far out of line to be considered reasonable. ...

In the 1973 taxation year, on the basis of the evidence adduced, I am not satisfied that the method of dealing with the cash shortage of $2,256.44 in the books of the partnership, and the omission of $1,128.22 in the appellant’s income statement for 1973, can be considered as coming within the meaning and intent of subsection 163(2) of the new Income Tax Act and, in my opinion, the penalties imposed for the 1973 taxation year in that respect are not warranted. ...

Counsel for appellant argued that the appellant company granted an exclusive right to the English company for a minimum payment of $150,000 plus 5% on proceeds from sales: that $75,000 had been received and reported as taxable royalty on the proceeds of sales in an amount of $1,500,000; that the other $75,000 should not be considered royalty because it was paid in a lump sum and not for use of the equipment. ...