Search - considered

According to him, the amount of $6,532.21 could in no way whatsoever be considered as an asset for Risteen and no one including Atkinson and Atkinson could get it back. ... Such incidental income from loans could be considered as incidental to his professional fees and could be branded as such. ...

If my said wife survives me for a period of thirty days, my residuary estate shall be divided and distributed as follows: (a) Fifty per cent of my said residuary estate shall be paid to my said wife for her own use absolutely; (b) The balance of my said residuary estate shall be divided into as many equal shares as there are daughters of mine alive at the time of my death, provided that if any daughter of mine shall be then deceased but Shall have left a child or children then alive, such daughter shall be considered as being alive for the purposes of such division into equal shares; (c) Each such share in respect of any deceased daughter shall be divided into as many equal shares as there are children of hers alive at the time of my death; (d) One equal share determined under paragraph (b) shall be transferred and paid to each daughter alive as aforesaid; (e) One equal share determined under paragraph (c) shall be transferred and paid to each grandchild who shall have attained the age of twenty-one years; (f) The share, including income therefrom, of any grandchild who shall not have attained the age of twenty-one years; PROVIDED THAT if such grandchild should die before attaining the age of twenty-one years, the share or any balance thereof, including income, shall be added in equal portions to the share or shares of his brothers and sisters who survive such deceased grandchild and be dealt with as part thereof; PROVIDED FURTHER that if no such brother and sister survive so as to take up such share or balance, it shall be paid to any daughter of mine who survives such brothers and sisters; 7. ... In that appeal the Minister considered that the word absolute used in the enactment denoted “certainty that the gift will come into possession and that as so used the word means both vested and indefeasible”. ...

In the same deal the licence held by the Vancouver-Seattle Bus Line, considered to be a valuable asset, was also transferred to the Nordal group. ... According to him, a sale with such a clause was still a sale irrespective of the option and could in no way whatsoever be considered as a loan or mortgage. ...

He also said that the question of the tax situation was considered. The various advantages were pointed out to him by his accountants and he felt that if he could build up his company to the point where, by the time he wished to retire, it had substantial retained earnings and substantial goodwill, he would be able to sell the company as a retirement fund source. ... The evidence is that in the period from 1963 to 1967 the Connors worked together as a team, and although all the income went to the appellant, it was considered as income earned by the couple as a family unit, was deposited in joint accounts, and there was no breakdown or salary allocation between the appellant and his wife, all the income having been declared by him. 23 I suppose this is not relevant to the final outcome of this case but I think it should be said, so that it will be known that I have not overlooked the fact. ...

A) THE QUESTION IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE RESPONDENT REQUESTS A DETERMINATION IS: Whether the amount of $21,500, paid by Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited to Canadian Horticultural Industries, is to be considered: 1. as an amount disbursed by Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited for the purchase: of goodwill from Canadian Horticultural Industries, so that consequently: i) the purchaser, Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited, having acquired a Capital. asset, the expense of which is not deductible pursuant to section 18(1)b) of the Act, must treat this asset in accordance with section 14(5)a) of the Act, and not pursuant to section 18(1)a) of the Act. ii) the vendor, Canadian Horticultural Industries, has sold a capital asset, the proceeds of which are taxable, pursuant to section 14(1) of the Act. 2. or as a payment pursuant to an agreement to share profits, So that consequently: i) this amount of $21,500 is a deductible expense for Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited, within the meaning of section 18(1)a) of the Act. li) this amount of $21,500 is a taxable income for Canadian Horticultural Industries, pursuant to section 9(1) of the Act. **'. ... It is conceivable that that restricted scope of the Board’s determination as to which taxpayer is to be assessed could be considered as final and subject only to a judicial review under section 28 of the Federal Court Act. ...

A) THE QUESTION IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE RESPONDENT REQUESTS A DETERMINATION IS: Whether the amount of $21,500, paid by Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited to Canadian Horticultural Industries, is to be considered: 1. as an amount disbursed by Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited for the purchase: of goodwill from Canadian Horticultural Industries, so that consequently: i) the purchaser, Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited, having acquired a Capital. asset, the expense of which is not deductible pursuant to section 18(1)b) of the Act, must treat this asset in accordance with section 14(5)a) of the Act, and not pursuant to section 18(1)a) of the Act. ii) the vendor, Canadian Horticultural Industries, has sold a capital asset, the proceeds of which are taxable, pursuant to section 14(1) of the Act. 2. or as a payment pursuant to an agreement to share profits, So that consequently: i) this amount of $21,500 is a deductible expense for Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited, within the meaning of section 18(1)a) of the Act. li) this amount of $21,500 is a taxable income for Canadian Horticultural Industries, pursuant to section 9(1) of the Act. **'. ... It is conceivable that that restricted scope of the Board’s determination as to which taxpayer is to be assessed could be considered as final and subject only to a judicial review under section 28 of the Federal Court Act. ...

If we continue on we find that the income that he earned is only relative—sorry I’m on the wrong one, it’s section 114 which reads: 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 in Canada, 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)... ... The appellant is to be considered a resident of Canada for income tax purposes for the years 1973 and 1974 and is entitled to expense deductions only as an employee, not as an independent contractor. ...

After the appellant’s return for the 1979 taxation year had been accepted as submitted and the appellant had been assessed accordingly, the Department of Revenue notified him, in a registered letter dated January 21, 1981, that only part of the legal expenses deducted, namely $2,363.95, was accepted as an expense, the balance of $12,786.00 being considered a personal expense that could not be deducted in computing his income. 3.04 The amount at issue in the present case is only $12,786. ...

The learned justice then proceeded to demonstrate that the only view which could fit the circumstances of Fraser (supra) (and then which in turn might have any application to Freud (supra)) was that when the business method chosen by which to acquire the land was the holding in a company interposed for that purpose, where the alternative of share capital of holding the land directly was available to the taxpayer, such shareholdings need not be considered as a capital investment but rather could be regarded as a trading outlay. ...

In addition counsel noted that a clear distinction existed between this case and Totem (supra) since the question of using the management bonus as a tax reduction mechanism had not been considered at all. ...