Search - considered

The sole issue in an appeal from an income tax assessment is whether, when the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act are considered in relation to the facts established at the hearing, the assessment is too high. ...

To substantiate his position, the respondent relied, inter alia, on subsection 103(1) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63, as amended, which reads as follows: (1) Where the members of a partnership have agreed to share, in a specified proportion, any income or loss of the partnership from any source or from sources in a particular place, as the case may be, or any other amount in respect of any activity of the partnership that is relevant to the computation of the income or taxable income of any of the members thereof, and the principal reason for the agreement may reasonably be considered to be the reduction or postponement of the tax that might otherwise have been or become payable under this Act, the share of each member of the partnership in the income or loss, as the case may be, or in that other amount, is the amount that is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances including the proportions in which the members have agreed to share profits and losses of the partnership from other sources or from sources in other places. ...

Subsections 74(1), 74(5) and 103(1) of the Income Tax Act read as follows: 74.(1) Where a person has, on or after August 1, 1917, transferred property either directly or indirectly by means of a trust or by any other means whatever to his spouse, or to a person who has since become his spouse, any income or loss, as the case may be, for a taxation year from the property or from property substituted therefor shall, during the lifetime of the transferor while he is resident in Canada and the transferee is his spouse, by deemed to be income or a loss, as the case may be, of the transferor and not of the transferee. 74.(5) Where a husband and wife were partners in a business, the income of one spouse from the business for a taxation year may, in the discretion of the Minister, be deemed to belong to the other spouse. 103.(1) Where the members of a partnership have agreed to share, in a specified proportion, any income or loss of the partnership from any source or from sources in a particular place, as the case may be, or any other amount in respect of any activity of the partnership that is relevant to the computation of the income or taxable income of any of the members thereof, and the principal reason for the agreement may reasonably be considered to be the deduction or postponement of the tax that might otherwise have been or become payable under this Act, the share of each member of the partnership in the income or loss, as the case may be, or in that other amount, is the amount that is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances including the proportions in which the members have agreed to share profits and losses of the partnership from other sources or from sources in other places. ...

I have considered them all but feel that the case of Jeno Horvath v MNR (not yet reported) applies. ...

Findings The relevant sections to be considered are paragraphs 6(1)(b), 8(1)(h), subsection 8(2) and section 67 of the Income Tax Act, which read as follows: 6.(1) There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from an office or employment such of the following amounts as are applicable: (b) all amounts received by him in the year as an allowance for personal or living expenses or as an allowance for any other purpose, except (v) reasonable allowances for travelling expenses received by an employee from his employer in respect of a period when he was employed in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for his employer. 8.(1) In computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto: (h) where the taxpayer, in the year, (i) was Ordinarily required to carry on the duties of his employment away from his employer’s place of business or in different places, (ii) under the contract of employment was required to pay the travelling expenses incurred by him in the performance of the duties of his office or employment, and (iii) was not in receipt of an allowance for travelling expenses that was, by virtue of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), (vi) or (vii), not included in computing his income and did not claim any deduction for the year under paragraph (e), (f) or (9), amounts expended by him in the year for travelling in the course of his employment. 8.(2) Except as permitted by this section, no deductions shall be made in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment. 67. ...

It seems clear from the evidence of most of the witnesses that they considered they had a primary duty to their own children to provide them with a Christian education in a separate Christian school and that obligation has been discharged by the payments to the Jarvis School. ...

When all the facts revealed in evidence are considered together, it is apparent that in 1977 the appellant’s connection with Canada was tenuous. ...

The parties agree that the only question before the Court is whether this checking and changing constitutes an inordinate amount of time under subsection 118.4(1) of the Income Tax Act, which reads: For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ...

In that appeal the trial judge considered the concept of an “inordinate” amount of time used by the legislature to describe a “marked” restriction of an inability to perform a basic activity of daily living resulting from a “severe and prolonged” impairment. ...

The Minister also assumed that the appellant lacked the requisite donative intent when he transferred the software to NCBS and therefore did not make any gift to the NCBS that would qualify for a charitable donation. [4] The Tax Court judge heard and considered both fact and expert evidence on the fair market value software donated to NCBS. ...