Search - considered

Johns-Manville is also helpful in identifying some factors that may be considered in determining whether a payment is on account of capital. ...   [27]            Shoppers Drug Mart dealt with another aspect of the going private transaction considered in this case. ... I see no reason to conclude that the greater use of employee stock option plans, in and by itself, should mean that a transaction like the one considered in Kaiser is not on capital account ...

It goes without saying that the appellant relied on those cases where it was found that the exchange profits arose in respect of funds which were considered as part of the taxpayer’s capital assets and therefore not taxable. ... In my opinion, the facts herein contained should be considered in relation to the facts which were the basis of the above decisions. ... The profit or loss from these financing operations, a necessary element of its business, was in the nature of revenue account and to be considered in assessing the taxpayer for income tax purposes. ...

  [5]      By way of background, the application of s. 162(2.1) in circumstances similar to this was recently considered in another appeal that was also heard under the informal procedure. ... That is not the end of the inquiry, however, as it remains to be considered whether another provision sets out a penalty. ...     [60]     Before concluding, I would briefly mention I have taken into account a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which considered the meaning of the term “liable” in a different context ...

We have considered this from the perspective of calculating the potential impact on JFPI of the loss of a major customer. ... We also understand that Counsel will argue that the expenditures to construct the Commons and the purchase of its equipment were made for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the JFPI Agricultural Division (with the exception that 25% of the Commons is considered to be used personally by the shareholders, for which rental income is charged). ... Based upon our calculations in the specific areas considered for purposes of this analysis, the economic benefits quantified herein represent approximately 81% of the net capital cost deductions denied as set out at Line 9 of Schedule 1 ...

(a) the appellant was incorporated on November 28, 1984 under Part 1A of the Quebec Companies Act, and its fiscal year ends on November 30 of each year; (b) the appellant, inter alia, carries on a business of purchase and resale of mushrooms, the commercial production of oyster mushrooms, and 80 per cent of its activities are oriented toward scientific research, that is the development of an experimental oyster mushroom production process; (c) very briefly, the purpose of the process is to control and limit the spread of oyster mushroom spores; the appellant's technique for doing this consists in covering the inside of its building with metal slats; the technique also consists in covering logs of wood with perforated plastic bags, and mushrooms grow out of the logs at the places thus perforated; (d) consequently, in conducting this scientific research, the appellant obtains a mushroom production, which it resells and which represents 80 per cent of the appellant's total sales, which totalled $121,224 during its 1986 taxation year; (e) since the income from the experimental production of oyster mushrooms is enough “to cover" the qualified expenditures of a current nature in respect of scientific research, there is no surplus of qualified expenditures to permit a calculation of the investment tax credit for scientific research, the whole as more amply calculated in Schedule 1, which forms an integral part of this paragraph; (f) as regards the capital property or capital expenditures for the purpose of calculating the scientific research investment tax credit, the maximum amount to be considered does not exceed $34,777, but this amount does not enter into the calculations because, in 1986, the appellant did not incur any qualified capital expenditures since this property was not all or substantially all used or intended, for scientific research, but in fact was used for production; 13. ... This argument is therefore not logical and cannot be considered. I conclude that the sums received from the sale of experimental products do not have to be deducted for the purposes of calculating the amount of qualified expenditures within the meaning of subsection 127(5) of the Act. ... The percentage established by the respondent on the same basis as the expenditures of a current nature is therefore not based on the facts and cannot be considered as valid. ...

At page 15 of his Reasons for Judgment, he stated: Though the word “control” is not defined in the Income Tax Act, it has been considered many times in the jurisprudence. This jurisprudence has settled that control is based on de jure control and not de facto control, and that the most important single factor to be considered is the voting rights attaching to shares. ... The case at bar does not involve any sophisticated class of shares or instruments binding on shareholders and/or directors alike which must be considered in assessing control. ...

He considered these amounts to be advances that he had made to Agence. ... Sundry dispositions of foreign currency by individuals, such as a conversion of traveller's cheques in foreign funds to Canadian dollars on return from a vacation, are considered to be on account of capital. Foreign exchange losses sustained on the repayment of a debt which was given to acquire a personal-use property are also considered to be capital losses under subsection 39(2).             ...

Position of the Parties   [9]              The Appellant takes the position that he can be considered to have been in the business of running an escort service due to his role in the Corporations and that the legal fees and surrender fees in issue are expenses directly relating to that business. ... It is trite law in this country that corporations are considered a separate legal entity from their shareholders or employees and the Act acknowledges this by defining a “person” in subsection 248(1) as including a corporation ... By his own evidence, he cannot be said to have carried such an important role as to suggest he personally should be considered to be operating the business even if that argument was feasible ...

(the Cirque) and for some of its subsidiaries, which considered him an employee. ...   [3]                After having considered the applicant’s special situation, the Ministère du Revenu du Québec decided to consider him a self-employed worker. ... This is definitely a relevant question which will have to be considered on the merits by the Minister, who will have to examine the contract concluded between the applicant and the Cirque to see if it reflects the true relationship that existed in fact between the same parties (9041-6868 Québec Inc., supra, at paragraph 9). ...

As a result, Tigertel shares could not be considered to be shares in a Canadian-controlled private corporation, and consequently the disposition of the Tigertel shares by the appellant in January 2000 did not qualify for the capital gains deduction claimed under subsection 110.6(2.1) of the Act ... The companies whose shares are traded by the CDN are thus not considered to be public corporations for the purposes of the Act. ... The auditor also considered the question of whether the taxpayer had reported all of his income. ...