Search - considered

. — Between November 1, 1972 and December 31, 1976, the appellant advanced a total of $104,660 US ($104,660 Cdn plus exchanges of $210.55) to the TGF, of which $96,660 US ($96,660 Cdn plus exchange of $194.46; $96,854.46 Cdn in total) was considered by the partners as the capital contribution of the appellant for his partnership interest which in 1974 was increased to 30% in accordance with the preceding paragraph. — The appellant with Lloyd and Len did form a partnership pursuant to the oral agreement between themselves. — The appellant did pay a total sum of $96,854.46 Cdn as a capital contribution to the TGF partnership. — The appellant did transfer his TGF partnership to Livestock in February of 1977 for the amount of $103,000 Cdn, thus incurring a taxable capital gain for his 1977 taxation year in the amount of $24,103.94; — The appellant did incur losses properly deductible, in accordance with paragraph 96(1)(g) and subsection 3(d) of the Act, in his 1972 to 1976 taxation years as follows: 1972 $ 7,597.13 1973 9,955.77 1974 11,445.44 1975 11,437.35 1976 7,771.38 In reply, the Minister assumed: — Livestock and the appellant were not persons dealing with each other at arm’s length; — Livestock and Holdings were not persons dealing with each other at arm’s length; — Bona fide arrangements were not made at the time the loans were made for repayment thereof; — The appellant was not in partnership with his father-in-law or brother-in-law in the operation of TGF during the 1972- 1976 taxation years; — The appellant did not share in the losses or profits generated by TGF during the period 1972- 1976; — During all material times the appellant was not actively engaged in the operation of TGF And the Minister contended: — There was no assignment by the appellant of a partnership interest in TGF to Livestock on February 27, 1977; — The appellant is not entitled to deduct a share of the losses incurred by TGF during the years 1972- 1976 (if such losses were incurred, which is specifically denied). — In the alternative the respondent submits that if the appellant did assign his interest in the partnership of TGF (which is specifically denied), the value of the said interest was not $103,000. ... Mr Tytlandsvik and Mr Ransom both testified that at the material time, late 1976, early 1977, Mr Ransom was a 30 percent partner in the TGF.... they considered themselves to be partners.... ...

She concluded that the only value which could be applied was that of the purchase price, namely $3,366 an arpent, which she considered was below the fair market value of the land immediately before Bill 90 came into effect. ... In his report Mr Duguay considered that the sum of $3,366 paid by the appellant for the land in 1977 was within the market limits and reflected its market value at that time. ...

It is alleged by the Minister of National Revenue in the explanation attached to the notice of re-assessment dated March 1, 1977 for the taxation year 1975 that the interest income, interest expenses, interest income deduction and capital loss as indicated in the income tax return of David H Hill for the taxation year 1975 should have been deleted because “it is not considered that the investment (to which those items related) was made for the purpose of producing income. 2. ... The Board has also consistently considered the physical transfer and the assignment as well as the legal ownership of the bonds to be necessary conditions for the taxpayer to be successful in meeting the requirements of subsection 20(14) of the Act. ...

The entire project was consistent with his training and profession as a draftsman — it was considered by him however to be for a separate and distinct business purpose. ... As for the other sundry items claimed by the taxpayer, in my view they are either reasonable as stated and supported at the hearing, or they should be considered as forming part of the basis for the $150 blanket allowance noted above. ...

His submission was that, if one considered all the circumstances surrounding each transaction and the commercial reality of the transactions, the only conclusion one could come to was that each expenditure was on account of capital. ... I find, all things being considered, that each vendor sold to the appellant everything he could have sold in so far as his business was concerned. ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer’s training, the taxpayer’s intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... Despite this period of ten years and because of the distinction made above, the Board considers that the preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that before he purchased the Strawbrook Farm, the appellant could be considered as a farmer, or that his main source of income was farming. ...

It’s a method of financing that is considered very standard in Alberta. ... Yes, I considered Mr Cantin to be an astute businessman. I knew at the time that he had expertise in certain areas of the automotive field and I thought that he would be an excellent addition to the management. ...

The wide disparity in the appraiser’s evaluations of the subject properties is undoubtedly due to the fact that on the basis of information allegedly available prior to 1971 Mr Ford considered the highest and best use of the properties to be residential, while Mr Corman’s view of the highest and best use of the properties remained agricultural. ... However, none of the above sales can be considered as truly comparable to subject property, particularly in location. ...

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. ...

Mr Crevier’s testimony, the explanation of his sources of information and the manner in which his information was completed (which was confirmed by Detective Sergeant Farmer), the numerous excerpts from CIOC’s report in which the appellant was implicated and the wiretaps in which the appellant’s voice was recognized were not considered by the Board from the same perspective or for the same reasons as they were received by the Chairman of the Inquiry into Organized Crime. ... However, the testimony of these persons denying they had paid the appellant the alleged amounts would have had to have been considered by the Board if counsel for the appellant had seen fit to call them as witnesses to rebut the respondent’s presumptions and discharge the onus of proof on him. ...