Search - considered

(SN p 90); (j) Quadra had not repurchased its own shares (SN p 91); (k) He assumed that the evaluation of the equipment was correct (SN p 92); (l) The amount of $2,850 was considered in the books as “payable wages”. ... Butcher admitted that the value of Mahar’s shares was 66% of $21,613 (paragraph 3.12-e). 4.2.7 As evidence was not given to the effect that Butcher paid Quadra for the assets transferred to Mahar, the balance of $12,009 must be considered as income in the hands of Butcher according to subsection 15(2). ...

The respondent further contended that legal expenses for its defence against a winding up action had no bearing on the appellants’ day to day operations and could not be considered as having been incurred for the purpose of producing income. ... From the case law cited, it would appear that legal fees directly related to and expended for the creation or the preservation of a specific capital asset or assets, are generally considered to be capital in nature. ...

Further credence to this position is given in Interpretation Bulletin #145 which when talking about FISHING states.. any activities carried out to prepare fish for market such as... freezing... are considered to be processing activities.” ... Federal Farms Ltd (DTC 66/5069) was considered to be processing when it put potatoes and carrots into bags. 2. ...

August 30, 1976 (Sgd) E Kein Date Co-ordinator Dr Jevons noted for the Board that while it was not considered necessary or proper by U of T to monitor the performance of a lecturer such as the appellant in view of his professional background, assumed integrity and dedication, nevertheless the authority so to do rested with the University in the event that complaints were received, and action contemplated. ... This was noted in Molot (supra), [1978] CTC 2183 and 77 DTC 120, in the following way and is equally applicable to this case: In the instant case control existed to whatever degree considered adequate and advisable by the University, over its full-time staff, and the evidence does not support the view that it was further diluted or, as alleged, eliminated entirely to accommodate the particular circumstances associated with part-time staff. ...

The appellant testified in the same way (SN p 26). 3.08 On March 11,1976, the appellant wrote to Nisbet Lodge (Exhibit A-3) to object to the deductions (income tax, CPP and UIC) of $6,410.33 because “This settlement then can be considered as damages rather than income and not subject to income tax.” ... This Board does not see how all those payments could have been considered: as remuneration or partial remuneration for services as an officer or under the contract of employment, The appellant indeed would not have worked anymore for Nisbet Lodge. ...

By letter dated July 27, 1978, the appellant requested a determination of loss under subsection 152(1.1) of the Income Tax Act and by the notice of confirmation by the Minister as aforesaid: The Honourable the Minister of National Revenue having reconsidered the notice of determination and having considered the facts and reasons set forth in the notice of objection hereby confirms the said notice of determination as having been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in particular on the ground that the non-capital loss in the amount of $220,457 has been properly determined within the provisions of subsection 152(1.1) of the Act and on the ground that $405,000 claimed as a deduction on account of interest paid is not an allowable deduction from income within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)(a) and 20(1)(c) of the Act. ... The latter company, a Canadian public company which operated a fleet of heavy equipment, was considered to have had a most promising business future due to the proposed construction of an oil or gas pipeline to be constructed in the western provinces. ...

This amount was considered to be the revenue of Palmak. This amount was reduced by the expenses attributable to Palmak. ... When all the evidence and the appropriate Act of the Province of Newfoundland is considered, as I view it, there was only one business carried on; namely, the combined business of optometrist/opti- cian. ...

These situations were: (1) where there was “an expectation on the part of the purchaser, at the time of purchase, that... it could be sold at a profit and that such expectation... induced him to make the purchase.. or (2) “If property is acquired when there is no business.. or (3) “one possibility in the mind of the purchaser is to use the property as the capital asset of a proposed business’’; or (4).. the purchaser has not considered how he will use it (the property)’’ (italics mine). ... In my view, however, the most telling point is that at the date of sale the one purpose for the acquisition (to preserve the family fortune) could not be considered at risk since the settlement for the land expropriated (about 200 acres) had ben considerably greater, by itself, than the total paid for all the property, and there is no evidence that the expropriation settlement was in any way conditional upon the sale of the balance of the land (some 433 acres). ...

It should be borne in mind that Associates only performed their specialty at the Hospital (and at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry which was, in effect, considered another operating room of the Hospital) and at no other hospital. ... Paragraph 28(b) indicates that new appointees—and it can only be considered that the appellant was one—would be engaged as an independent contractor on a fee basis by the partnership for a probationary period. ...

Now let us quote subsection 21(1) of the ITAR and let us check if any amount must be included in its income according to his contention: Goodwill and other “nothings”. (1) Where as a result of a transaction occurring after 1971 an amount (in this section referred to as the ‘actual amount’) has become payable to a taxpayer in respect of a business carried on by him throughout the period commencing January 1, 1972 and ending immediately after the transaction occurred, for the purposes of section 14 of the amended Act the amount that has become so payable to him shall be deemed to be the aggregate of (a) an amount equal to a percentage, equal to 40% plus the percentage (not exceeding 60%) obtained when 5% is multiplied by the number of full calendar years ending in the period and before the transaction occurred, of the amount, if any, by which the actual amount exceeds the portion thereof referred to in subparagraph (b)(i), and (b) an amount equal to the lesser of (i) the percentage, described in paragraph (a), of such portion, if any, of the actual amount as may reasonably be considered as being the consideration received by him for the disposition of, or for allowing the expiry of, a government right, and (ii) the amount, if any, by which the portion described in subparagraph (i) exceeds the greater of (A) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is an outlay or expenditure, made or incurred by the taxpayer as a result of a transaction occurring before 1972 for the purpose of acquiring the government right, or the taxpayer’s original right in respect of the government right, to the extent that the outlay or expenditure was not otherwise deducted in computing the income of the taxpayer for any taxation year and would, if made or incurred by him as a result of a transaction occurring after 1971, be an eligible capital expenditure of the taxpayer, and (B) the fair market value to the taxpayer as at December 31, 1971 of the government right or the taxpayer’s original right in respect of the government right, if no outlay or expenditure was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of acquiring the right or, if an outlay or expenditure was made or incurred, if that outlay or expenditure would have been an eligible capital expenditure of the taxpayer if it had been made (or) incurred as a result of a transaction occurring after 1971. ... Consequently, 40% of this amount ($16,000) must firstly be considered. ...