Search - considered

In my opinion, the appellant and his wife are considered in this instance, by statute, as a unit for tax purposes. ...

In my opinion, there can be instances in which the purchase of a customers list and nothing else might in itself be considered to be an operational expense made by an agent to acquire new customers and to produce more income. ...

In Henry v MNR, [1972] CTC 33: 72 DTC 6005, which was cited by the respondent, the Supreme Court of Canada considered that such use was for persona! ...

The money he received for his material was considered a profit. In 1968 the appellant decided to write professionally and in order to have a study in which he might have a library and a place to file his notes which were necessary in writing his material, he purchased a house for the purpose and in 1969 and 1970 claimed as rental expenses $319 and $261 respectively representing approximately 10% of the average cost of maintenance. ...

One has considered the criteria used by the judiciary for deciding whether or not a transaction was a venture in the nature of trade. ...

In the course of the argument the following were some of the cases cited and considered: Okalta Oils Limited v MNR, [1955] S.C.R. 824; [1955] CTC 271; 55 DTC 1176: Anjulin Farms Ltd v MNR, [1961] Ex CR 381; [1961] CTC 250: 61 DTC 1182; Newfoundland Minerals Ltd v MNR, [1969] CTC 639: 69 DTC 5432; Louis J Harris v MNR, [1966] S.C.R. 489; [1966] CTC 226; 66 DTC 5189; Ernest G Stickel v MNR, [1972] CTC 210; 72 DTC 6178; Falconbridge Nickel Mines v MNR, [1971] CTC 789; 71 DTC 5461; Pure Spring Ltd v MNR, [1946] Ex CR 471; [1946] CTC 169; 2 DTC 844; Bert W Woon v MNR, [1950] Ex CR 327; [19501 CTC 263; 4 DTC 871; Rainbow Pipe Line Co Limited v MNR, [1972] CTC 2127; 72 DTC 1132; Zomac Holdings Limited v MNR, [1972] CTC 2191; 72 DTC 1150; Andrew A Wurz v MNR, [1972] CTC 2294; 72 DTC 1238; T Desmond Earl v MNR, 40 Tax ABC 329; 66 DTC 192; Ontario Culvert & Metal Products Ltd v MNR, 38 Tax ABC 256; 65 DTC 379. ...

Guy Tremblay, CJ and Mr Robert Wells clearly indicate in their testimony that they considered the sums thus paid to the children and the transactions made on their behalf as irrevocable, and the appellant’s divestiture of his property as absolute. ...

The appellant then points out that the contribution of 6% of his salary to a pension fund was obligatory and a prerequisite of employ- ment at SDBJ and should be considered as an outlay or expense to earn income. ...

However, if this section is considered as a whole, it is difficult to justify the interpretation given by counsel for the appellant to the words “at any time during the preceding year when the business was being carried on”. ...

Although he was obliged, by the Superior Court judgment, to house his wife and children in the said home and to make the said payments, these expenses were of benefit to the appellant himself and cannot be considered to be expenses for the maintenance of ‘his wife and children; in my opinion they represent personal or living expenses, which are not deductible. ...