Search - considered

He would be considered a full-time employee by his employer, particularly if regularly he replaced the man who left at 5 pm and was in turn replaced by another who assumed the role at 1 or 2 am. ...

The documents produced by the appellant were not considered by the Board to be significant, but the verbal testimony of the appellant in answer to questions from his counsel was of considerable assistance: When I call on someone and I’m trying to sell them a headstone, in place of a business card I leave an envelope, the same as this Vancouver envelope, but I usually give the Wainwright Post Office Box... and I use it as a forwarding address, which is just automatically forwarded from the Post Office Box in Wainwright. ...

He also argued that if the wife’s company did not amount to anything, all she received should have been considered as a gift from her husband and, consequently, the appellant company should not be assessed; that the present case was against the economy of Canada because it prevented the incorporation of another taxpayer who was going to repatriate taxes paid in the United States; that the only way to separate a principal and an agent was to incorporate a company, and that according to the decision in MNR v James A Cameron, [1972] CTC 380; 72 DTC 6325, people are entitled to be incorporated. ...

As a matter of fact, the scope of the appellant’s activity became so restricted in 1959 that what was done during the whole of the said taxation year cannot be considered as business operations being carried on outside Canada. ...

Under the circumstances goodwill cannot be considered as an element in the transaction. ...

There is evidence that it had done some small jobs other than house construction, but they were, so far as Mr Bird was concerned, too small to be considered a diversification of the nature he was interested in. ...

Even though the auditors found that cheques of large amounts payable to and endorsed by Lindstrom Construction Ltd had been deposited to the Mill City account, the funds had been withdrawn from the account within a very few days (Exhibit A-12). 17 In order to determine whether or not the appellant company sustained a loss in 1971 which could be carried back to its 1970 taxation year, and whether the amount of $23,622.85 was properly added to the appellant's 1972 income, it is necessary to decide which of the two companies—Lindstrom Construction Ltd (the appellant herein) or Mill City—should, for income tax purposes, be considered to have been legally entitled to the profits derived from the execution of the kiln contracts. 18 Counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention that Mill City was entitled to the profits, referred to the case of Frank Sura v Minister of National Revenue, [1962] S.C.R. 65, [1962] C.T.C. 1, 62 D.T.C. 1005, where Mr Justice Taschereau of the Supreme Court of Canada (who delivered his original reasons for judgment in French, [1962] S.C.R. 65, [1962] C.T.C. 4–5 says at page 1006 of the CCH translation: Nothing in subsequent amendments of the Act changes the rule that it is not ownership of property which is taxable, but that the tax is imposed on a taxpayer, and the tax is determined by the income received by the person who is the legal beneficiary from employment, businesses, property or ownership. ...

It appears to me that the respondent’s assessment therefore would probably also founder on the fact that all the evidence points to an interpretation the amounts received by the appellant from HRS were considered loans by both parties and not, at any time advances, commissions or advances on commissions. ...

However, since no partnership was formed and no new company was incorporated and since Starmount never did purchase the property it is difficult to see how that agreement can be considered as valid. ...

However that may have been, the Amended Notice of Appeal gave a rather clear indication that both land and buildings were considered by the appellant, and the parties having agreed to that at the commencement of the hearing, the Board found no reason in the documentation to restrict the appellant’s claim for relief. ...