Search - considered

Results 881 - 890 of 917 for considered
T Rev B decision

Henri Champagne v. Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 2967, [1978] DTC 1698

The Board deliberately leaves as part of the judgment the summary of the evidence, to be considered as an obiter dictum. ...
T Rev B decision

Jic Developments Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 2992

Under the circumstances of this appeal can the purchase by the appellant of the subject property be considered as speculation? ...
T Rev B decision

Hotel Cartier Inc v. Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 3029, [1978] DTC 1740

Being against the appellant’s interests, the Statement was also against the interests of the deceased and his heirs. 5.2 Cost of equipment and labour According to the appellant’s evidence as given in paragraphs 4.9, 4.11 and 4.15, the cost cf certain equipment ($3,407.47) and labour incurred for improvements to the hotel ($1,489.50 in 1972 and $2,263 in 1973) ought not to be considered as operating expenses but as Capital expenditures subject to depreciation. ...
T Rev B decision

Kenneth G Mills v. Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 3166, [1978] DTC 1851

All the facts of the case having been considered, I am satisfied that the contributions came to Mills as a result of a business operation and therefore the amounts added by the reassessments were properly included in his income. ...
T Rev B decision

Gabriel Maioni v. Minister of National Revenueand Orlando Foglietta and Green Acres Sod Farms Ltd, Third Parties., [1980] CTC 2722, [1980] DTC 1626

This could be considered as a commencement of proof in writing. 4.3.2 In studying the evidence concerning the decision to reimburse the $35,000 of salary for 1974 (para 3.07), Orlando’s reasons in making that decision (para 3.09), the testimony of Mr Mallette (para 3.14), that Orlando had not cashed the bonus, but had applied it against the debt of $35,000, and the payment of the balance in October 1975 to the company, the Board must conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that the bonus has not been cancelled by the company, that in fact both the appellant and Orlando had received it. ...
T Rev B decision

Highfield Corp. v. MNR, 82 DTC 1835, [1982] CTC 2812 (TRB)

Then finally, if it is possible, and we respectfully submit that it is not on the facts of this case, to find that the business of the taxpayer was not that of lending, but if it can be said that it was some other business, then at the very least the loans were an integral part of that business and to the extent of the evidence before you, is that those loans were bad, they are probably deductible in computing the profit, under the General Business Rules, Sec 9(1) and (2) and Sec 18(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.... unless the stte of the law today is that in no case can a corporate taxpayer be considered to be in the business of lending or part of its business to be that of lending, where it makes a loan to a company in which it has equity, ie shares, the taxpayer must succeed in this case.... the equity that Highfield had in the various companies to which it lent money, it is repectfully submitted, are supportive of its lending activities, given that the evidence indicates that such shares were received as extra consideration for loans being made and therefore don’t detract from its status as a lender... ... However, as I have already noted, I do not find much in that mathematical argument which should be considered critical to a determination of the issue before the Board. ...
T Rev B decision

Lehndorff Realty Developments Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1982] CTC 2721, 82 DTC 1742

There would have been nothing to loan because without an unqualified opinion by the German auditors Dr Abromeit considered it impossible to sell interests in the partnership which, as a practical matter, was the only available source of funds. ... He stated at page 699: “The evidence indeed disclosed that Pigott paid the expenses and most of the accounts were submitted to Pigott who never considered them to be First Wentworth’s expenses. ...
T Rev B decision

Maurice Fortin, B & M Fortin Inc v. Minister of National Revenue, [1980] CTC 2680

Expenses of the company considered by the respondent to be personal expenses of Mr Fortin 4.03 To facilitate the task of the witnesses, the respondent filed a table (Exhibit 1-4) showing expenses in the amount of $57,645.95 claimed by the company and disallowed. ... Normally, according to the principles set out above, they should be considered judicial admissions and the appeals of the appellant shareholder should be dismissed. ...
T Rev B decision

Marcel, Rene and Yvonne Giguere v. Minister of National Revenue, [1972] CTC 2466, 72 DTC 1392

Yield value We do not think that this factor should be considered because, after Mr. ... Positive goodwill cannot be considered in evaluating the shares. Sales of shares On December 30, 1964, two separate sales of company shares were transacted. ...
T Rev B decision

Clayton Andreychuk v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] CTC 2052, 83 DTC 20

This has to do with the sale of inventory when a taxpayer effectively is selling the entire business, and this section deems that that inventory — this has to be property or assets held as inventory, not as capital property — that deems that that inventory shall be considered to have been sold by him in the course of carrying on business. ...

Pages