Search - considered

It is obvious that he considered it, but found it to be of no assistance to the applicant. [8]                For these reasons, I would dismiss the application for judicial review with costs.                                                                                                                                ...

Further, they were unable to persuade us that Angers J.T.C.C. erred in any way that would provide us with a basis for intervention. [6]                In our opinion, the evidence before the first judge, considered as a whole, could reasonably support his findings. [7]                Accordingly, the applications for judicial review will be dismissed with costs.         ...

Thus, even though the taxpayer has a personal interest in the activity, if 'the venture is undertaken in a sufficiently commercial manner, the venture will be considered a source of income for the purposes of the Act ': Stewart at para. 52. ...

In the ruling which it sent to the claimant CCRA stated: Your employment with Rupinder Pannu of Pan Pac Farms [sic] during the periods under review cannot be considered as insurable or pensionable employment as you were not an employee performing service under a contract of service. ...

However, it is for the Tax Court Judge, as the trier of fact, to consider the totality of the evidence and to assess its credibility in determining whether the taxpayer has demonstrated that the Minister was in error in disallowing the claimed deductions. [4]                 It is to be inferred from the Tax Court Judge's reasons in this case that he considered all the evidence before him, but was not persuaded that it was sufficient to discharge Mr. ...

The judge observed, in the very words of the accountant involved in preparing the transaction, that Garage LBS had acquired all of the shares of the capital stock of Trans Côte for the nominal sum of $1 and found that: (a)        the appellant, a physician, was under pressure by the Corporation professionnelle des médecins du Québec to dispose of his shares in Trans Côte; (b)        the Corporation professionnelle des médecins du Québec was putting this pressure on him because it considered that the appellant might have been in a conflict of interest when, as a physician, he ordered that patients be transferred to other institutions or, as a physician involved in the transport committee, he validated the transport of patients when the air transport of patients was provided by Trans Côte, which he owned; (c)        the appellant decided to dispose of the shares of the capital stock of Trans Côte to Garage LBS and his agents organized it to accommodate him temporarily in order to satisfy the Corporation professionnelle des médecins and reduce the pressure that it was putting on him; (d)        under the terms of that transaction, the appellant did not lose control in fact of Trans Côte; (e)        the decision by Garage LBS to purchase the shares of Trans Côte was in fact made by the appellant, who held 50 % of the shares of Garage LBS, of which he and Philippe Labadie were the directors; (f)         the shares of the capital stock of Trans Côte were transferred to a person with whom he was not dealing at arms length; and (g)        the loss claimed by the appellant resulted from a disposition that was artificial since it was to a person controlled by him at the time of the disposition. [4]         Those findings of fact made by the trial judge, who heard and saw the witnesses, and the inferences he drew from them, can be set aside only if they contain palpable and overriding errors or if they result from such errors: Housen v. ...

The Tax Court Judge found that the Minister had considered all of the relevant facts and that he had not been misled by irrelevant considerations. [7]                 Although not obliged to do so, in view of his conclusion with respect to the first step of the inquiry, the Tax Court Judge turned his attention to the merits of the case. ...

He argues further that Graham J. erred by applying an unduly technical and formalistic analysis, and that he should not have considered any of the events prior to the April 3, 2012 status hearing by virtue of issue estoppel. [12]            I see no merit to any of Mr. ...

The CFO Letter makes references to the materials in the Five Binders (Appeal Book at pages 68-70). [4]                The Appeals Division considered the CFO Letter and the Five Binders, but nonetheless confirmed the Assessment. ...

Indeed, he concluded that the presumption should not be considered because it was a [translation] “legal fiction” and that the impossibility to act had to be assessed irrespective of any fiction ...