Search - considered

Subsections 74(5) and 103(1) read as follows: 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 proportiion, 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. 4.02 Case law Counsel for the parties referred to the following cases: 1. ... The Department of National Revenue contended that the contract itself is not valid because “the principal reason for the agreement may reasonably be considered to be the reduction... of the tax”, as stated in subsection 103(1) of the Income Tax Act. ...

Counsel for the respondent maintained that the place of employment could not qualify as a “special work site” because the duties performed by the appellant were not of a temporary nature, that the term “board” should apply to his food and to his accommodation, whereas the appellant paid only for his food, and that the sum in question could not be considered an “allowance”. ... Whether or not the appellant and the company had the same understanding of the agreement in question is not an issue to be considered by this Board. ...

Mrs Cornforth never filed an income tax return and was, for tax purposes, considered by the husband along with their children, as his dependants. ... I am not at all certain that there exist guidelines to help determine the degree of activity or expertise required before a taxpayer can be considered to be a bona fide partner. ...

The following cases were cited by the respondent and duly considered: Birmount Holdings Limited v Her Majesty The Queen, [1978] CTC 358; 78 DTC 6254; Irwin A Blackstone v MNR, [1972] CTC 2484; 72 DTC 1404; Helene Boivin v MNR, [1970] Tax ABC 565; 70 DTC 1364; Ross Brown v MNR, [1979] CTC 2248; 79 DTC 227; Carribean Properties Limited v Her Majesty The Queen, [1974] CTC 858; 74 DTC 660; David Chin, Yin Chiu Chan, C.C. ... McDonald v Her Majesty The Queen, [1974] CTC 836; 74 DTC 6644; Brian McKinney et al v MNR, [1978] CTC 2675: 78 DTC 1490, MNR v M & N E Lawee, [1972] CTC 359; 72 DTC 6342; Louise Morency-Lortie v MNR, [1978] CTC 2941; 78 DTC 1681; Norton Investments Ltd v Her Majesty The Queen, [1978] CTC 154; 78 DTC 6078; Marilyn A Palmer v Her Majesty The Queen, [1973] CTC 323; 73 DTC 5248; Regal Heights Ltd v MNR, [1960] CTC 46; 60 DTC 1041; Rosslynn Estates Limited v MNR, [1972] CTC 65; 72 DTC 6051; [1974] CTC 185; Edward A Schaffer v MNR, [1971] CTC 577; 71 DTC 5306; Raymond Schumph v MNR, [1979] CTC 2850; 79 DTC 723; Harvey Clarke Smith v MNR, [1960] CTC 391; 60 DTC 1282; Michael Starko v MNR, [1965] CTC 246; 65 DTC 5151; Margaret Stroh & Lincoln H Stroh v MNR, [1980] CTC 2508; 80 DTC 1457; Varennes Holdings Corp v Her Majesty The Queen, [1975] CTC 230; 75 DTC 5164; Ann Wisniewski v MNR, [1978] CTC 2298; 79 DTC 266; The following cases were submitted in the able argument of counsel for the appellant and were duly considered: Demeter Equity Limited v Her Majesty The Queen, [1979] CTC 311; 79 DTC 5230; Ika Enterprises and Developments Limited v Her Majesty The Queen, [1978] CTC 176; 78 DTC 6088; Everlease (Ontario) Limited v MNR, [1968] Tax ABC 162; 68 DTC 180; No 13 v MNR, 3 Tax ABC 397; 51 DTC 117; Her Majesty The Queen v Stefan Jachimowicz, [1977] CTC 162; 77 DTC 5148; Wolf von Richthofen v MNR, [1968] CTC 544; 68 DTC 5346; MNR v Muzly Lawee and Naima E Lawee, [1972] CTC 359; 72 DTC 6342. ...

The hospital considered him as a member of the medical staff of the hospital. ... I have also considered the following cases: Massey v Crown Life Insurance Co., [1978] 2 All ER 576; and Co-Operators Insurance Association and Robert Henry (Bert) Kearney, [1965] S.C.R. 106. ...

Point of Issue The first point is whether the interest of $730, included in the amount of $16,271.84 received by the appellant from his registered retirement savings plan that he withdrew during the 1978 year, may be considered as deducti- ble in accordance with section 110.1 of the Income Tax Act. ... The respondent disallowed the deduction on the basis that the sum received must be considered as a fully taxable benefit. 4. ...

The employer in fact gave the appellant two weeks’ notice which, in my opinion, cannot be considered as unreasonable or insufficient notice. ... The taxpayer objected to the amounts being considered by the Department of National Revenue as income from employment, contending that they were personal gifts. ...

The gross rental income from the little house on the property in 1974 and 1975 is insignificant when considered with the gross revenue received by the appellant from his medical practice. ... I am also prepared to accept the appellant’s statement of facts to mean that it was never his intention to invest money in the said building as a form of investment in rental property, but that he considered the construction of the building and the rental of the extra space therein as a necessary and inevitable condition for the successful operation of his professional business. ...

While this is an understandable goal for the taxpayer, I do not view subsection 62(3) of the Act as allowing for some sliding scale of costs related to the risk for personal gain considered warranted by the taxpayer. ... Those are elements of risk to be considered, weighed and decided by the taxpayer. ...

Should not the payment of the insurance policy premium be considered in the same way as the payment of the debt? ... The cases cited to me and considered by me are as follows: Emile Morin v MNR, 26 Tax ABC 161; 61 DTC 161; Equitable Acceptance Corporation v MNR, [1964] CTC 74; 64 DTC 5045; MNR v Yonge-Eglinton Building Limited, [1974] CTC 209; 74 DTC 6180; Côté-Reco Inc v MNR, [1980] CTC 2019; 80 DTC 1012; Rousseau Metal Inc v MNR [1979] CTC 2681; 79 DTC 467, DJ MacDonald Sales Limited v MNR, 16 Tax ABC 49; 56 DTC 481; Heap & Partners (Nfld) Limited v MNR, 42 Tax ABC 278; 66 DTC 772, L Berman & Co Ltd v MNR, [1961] CTC 237; 61 DTC 1150; John W Ramsay v MNR, 26 Tax ABC 193; 61 DTC 191; William Harold Loughran v MNR, 13 Tax ABC 154; 55 DTC 361; Joseph Zatzman v MNR, 23 Tax ABC 193; 59 DTC 635; Massey-Ferguson Limited v Her Majesty The Queen, [1974] CTC 671; 74 DTC 6529; Eastern Paving Limited v MNR, [1967] Tax ABC 928; 67 DTC 639. ...