Search - considered

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. ...

What is the line which separates the two classes of cases may be difficult to define, and each case must be considered according to its facts; the question to be determined being— Is the sum of gain that has been made a mere enhancement of value by realising a security, or is it a gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making? ... Kelly, [1943] 2 All E.R. 119, that the intention with which a transaction was entered into is a feature that should be considered under the British Income Tax Act. ... The question which was there being considered by the Court of Appeal was not whether or not the discounts and premiums in question were profits of a trade but whether or not they were income chargeable to tax under Case V of Schedule D of the English statute as income from possessions out of the United Kingdom or under Case III of Schedule D as discounts, and the judgment was that they were not subject to tax under Case V or Case III. ...

The question, in such circumstances, of what is income has been before the Courts in a number of cases and the principles applicable have been considered in both the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee. ... On October 19, 1950, it was reported to the annual meeting of shareholders that the directors considered that the company should elect, under Section 95A of the Income Tax Act enacted in 1950, by 11-12 Geo. ... In view of Section 61, it must be considered that redemption took place out of profits, that being the only way it validly could have taken place without supplementary letters patent being obtained. ...

One of the recitals in the said agreement is as follows: 4 ‘WHEREAS, having regard to the guarantee of the Canadian Government, and all other circumstances, it is considered fair and equitable that the remainder of the loss incurred under the ship building agreement, amounting to $450,000 be assumed by the Canadian Government, and that the amount of the outstanding advances be abated accordingly.” ... In the first place I do not think that the benefit received by the appellant by reason of the abatement can be considered as a subsidy. ... As I read the judgment of Rowlatt, J., he considered the benefit received by the taxpayer as something quite outside the scope of its trading activities; something which was conferred on it ‘‘as an act of grace although business methods were. behind it’’. ...

Therefore, it was Access Cash’s cash that was loaded into the ATMs. [12] In determining who operated the ATMs, the Tax Court Judge considered a number of factors. [13] He found that Access Cash connected the ATMs to the Interac network and was responsible for loading the cassettes (that contained the cash) into the ATMs. ... [footnote reference omitted] [19] The Tax Court Judge found that the cardholders paid the surcharge fee to Access Cash for services provided by Access Cash and that Access Cash paid River Cree for supplies made outside the series of supplies that allowed the cardholders to withdraw money from their bank accounts by using the ATMs. [20] The Tax Court Judge then considered whether there was a single compound supply or multiple supplies of separate goods and services made by River Cree to Access Cash. ... Joint Venture [29] The Tax Court Judge considered River Cree’s argument that it was in a joint venture with Access Cash. ...