Search - considered

This is something that must be considered, and has been considered, and that has been referred to again in the judgment of Mr Justice Walsh in the LDG Products Inc case, where he quotes from pages 267-8 [5174] of his judgment in Concorde Automobiles Ltée v MNR, [1971] CTC 246; 71 DTC 5161, as follows:. I.. 1 therefore believe it is necessary in any given case to attempt to determine from the facts of that case whether the company was merely incidentally gaining a tax advantage as a result of setting up a bona fide pension plan, or whether it would not have considered setting up this pension plan but for the tax advantage to be gained as a result thereof, and in the latter event, Section 137(1) would be applied. ... In dealing with the question of what transpired subsequent to the year in question, Mr Justice Walsh points out, at page 287 [5232] of his reasons in the LDG Products case: Appellant argued that the contributions called for were duly made in 1965 and 1966 and that the fact that they were later suspended cannot have a retroactive effect so as to indicate that the plan in those years should not be considered as a bona fide pension plan. ...

In your letter December 8, 1968 you state that the concrete floats of our manufacture are not considered ‘structures’ and therefore cannot be dealt with under Section 29. ... It was further confirmed that the floatable goods named are not considered to be structures within the meaning of Section 29(2b). ... It is considered that the wording as shown in your draft statement correctly presents the points in issue. ...

It was considered by the respective boards that this property as ideally suited for appellants’ future expansion plans. ... Statements now made as to intention at the time of acquisition must be considered along with the objective facts. ... While that listing was for a period of one year I fail to follow how it could be considered as ‘‘temporary’’ as suggested by Mr. ...

The judgment considered the promissory notes to be merely a simple type of acknowledgment recording the facts of the arrangement. ... Evidently all the members of the family considered the younger brothers and sister would eventually, as they got old enough to fully participate, acquire the same rights as the three older brothers by virtue of the purchase agreement. ... Without in any way holding that in all cases where a farmer and adult members of his family operate a farm together for their mutual profit and benefit a partnership must necessarily be considered as exsiting, I nevertheless believe from the facts of this case, and applying the dictum of Duff J. ...

It was also open to them, of course, and I am of the view that the appellant and the said beneficiaries knew that they could, as beneficiaries, having received such lump sum payments, pay such monies so received into a deferred profit-sharing plan and obtain the benefit of the relieving provisions as then existing of Section 11(1) (u) of the Income Tax Act, but nowhere is there any evidence that the appellant or the said four officers of it, the four members of the Strasser family, ever considered or intended to adopt this latter course of action. ... I say this notwithstanding that prior to December 31, 1964 the company and its executive officers considered setting up the pension plan and considered such pension plan in two parts, namely, one under the provisions of Exhibit A-4 into which funds would be paid and subsequently transferred or caused to be reinvested by the beneficiaries after pay-out into a deferred profit-sharing plan under the provisions of Section 79C of the Act; obtained the Minister’s approval for past service or special payment contributions to such a plan under Section 76 of the Act; and obtained the registration of such a plan so as to be a plan within the meaning of a registered pension plan under Section 139(1) (ahh) of the Act so as to qualify current contributions to such a plan as a deduction under Section 11(1) (g) of the Act. ... And at pages 112-113 [p. 568]: These facts lead me to the conclusion that while there was a partnership agreement, it was never considered by the respondent as binding on him. ...

Ltd of 100 common shares it held in the appellant to the Trust on January 1 st, 2005. d) the Respondent further adds, in paragraph 7.1(f), that none of the transactions may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. ... The AGC submits that none of the following avoidance transactions may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit, and are consequently avoidance transactions within the meaning of subsections 245(2) and 245(3) of the Act. ... The Respondent acknowledges that the potential application of the GAAR had been considered by various officers of the CRA during the audit of the Appellant but that it was ultimately not a basis on which the reassessments had been issued. [38] The fact that the Respondent has chosen to add now the proposed amendments to its pleading does not constitute a prejudice to the Appellant. ...

(a) Source of Income 5 It is apparent from section 3 of the Act that “business”, “property” and “offices and employment” are considered to be sources of income. ... If it were so, the farmer, whose whole cropwould have been destroyed just before harvest time, could not deduct thewhole of his farming loss since his farming business having yielded no grossincome for that year would not be considered as a source of income at all. ... Without attempting in any way to exhaust the possibilities, some of those criteria which might be considered are the relative amounts of capital investment in the respective sources, the reasonableness of his expectation of profit therefrom, the amounts of gross income and of net income derived from each source, the proportion of time spent in each day by the taxpayer in respect of each source, and the prior history of the respective sources in respect of amount of income generated. ...

On the contrary, it would appear from the recitals in the deed of William Morris to the appellant, dated May 1, 1945, that the father then considered that following the death of his wife in 1941, he and his son, the appellant, were the owners as joint tenants of the property. ... As will be seen later, the appellant considered himself to be thereafter the owner in fee simple of the property when executing four mortgages thereon. ... Ford, it is also reasonable to infer that both the appellant and his wife considered that the sisters had accepted the mortgage for $3,000 in payment of all their rights under the trust agreement and in the property and that later on they were content to accept $2,300 in settlement of their rights. ...

Consequently, the appellant cannot be considered as having been organized as a tax exempt pension society. ... Consequently, it cannot be considered as a pension society in the ordinary sense of the term and, to that extent, its name is a misnomer. ... Woodward’s mind, when the organization of the appellant was being considered, to establish a tax exempt pension society that would enjoy the benefits of Section 5(1) (h) of the Income War Tax Act that purpose was never accomplished. ...

The objects stated in the Memorandum of Association of the appellant are to be considered. ... As to the Barnsdall lease it was agreed that it had been made by Minerals at the request of Leaseholds and as between the parties was to be considered as a sublease oranted by Leaseholds under a further lease to be entered into on that date. ... The other considerations for the granting of the new lease are not relevant to the matters to be considered. ...