Search - considered

The term “eligible individual” is defined in s. 122.6 in part as follows: In this subdivision, [122.6] “eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfil the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (C) is resident in Canada, and, for the purposes of this definition, (h) factors to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing may be set out in regulations made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare; [6302] For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition “eligible individual” in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant; (a) the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d) the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e) the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f) the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g) the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h) the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. ...

Mulvale said that he considered the first three to be most comparable, and he gave the opinion that the appropriate value per acre for the subject property at November 30, 1990 was $25,000. ... Sabourin viewed this as a rate of decline of 24.66% per year, and he considered the annual rate of decline of the three residential properties to be respectively, 6.63%, 9.95% and 6.82%. ...

Counsel for the plaintiff, among other things, submits that the ejusdem generis rule should be employed in considering all the words used in the subsection of the Act to assist in determining whether each of these payments should be considered as payment falling within the meaning of “rent, royalty or other similar payment”; and that in so employing this rule one should find that they are outside such meaning because that subsection refers to and charges only payments made on income account not on capital account. ... In other words, everything is considered to be covered. This is a fundamental change from the basic scheme and concept of the previous Act which employed general language in its charging provisions. ...

The appellant pointed out that he had made allowances for what he considered personal or living expenses before he had filed the financial statements for the farm during each of the years 1973, 1974,1975 and 1976, and he had claimed the losses shown to the maximum allowable under the Act. ... In contrast to the perspective which I take in this appeal with regard to the single year 1974, it would appear that in Gi/lis (supra) there was neither evidence of a reasonable expectation of profit during the years under appeal, nor evidence that in the three years subsequent to 1973 the appellant had reached that conclusion and considered winding up the operation. ...

At that meeting the three discussed what they considered to be the participation of the key employees in the Company and what it would amount to at a price of $100 per share, being the price offered by the Whitehead proposal, and also the cost of funding a pension for each of them. ... The relative bargaining positions of the appellant and Mr Alberts at this point should be considered. ...

The time from September to December 1972 will be considered an adaptation period. ... The courts have considered this type of payment to be taxable. Even the Atkins case, which decided that the taxpayer should not be taxed, makes it clear that this was not an amount paid as salary, as in the Quance case, but rather compensation for breach of contract, compensation not previously provided for in the contract. ...

Counsel for the appellant argues that there is no need to distinguish between appellant’s occupation in the United States and his activities in Canada: any activity on his part was to be considered as being connected with his “enterprise” within the meaning of section 3 of the Protocol and since he was a resident of the United States, this enterprise was necessarily a United States enterprise. ... An individual may well have more than one enterprise, and in any case, an enterprise must have originated in a State and carry out some of its activities there, if it is to be considered “of that State”. ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer’s training, the taxpayer’s intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... Even the information that the immediately subsequent years continued to show losses would not of itself invalidate the proposition that the efforts and intentions of the taxpayer during the years in question were directed to making a profit. lt seems evident from the Moldowan decision (supra) that at some point in time, and after some experience, the question might well arise whether farming considered as qualifying for “restricted farm losses” had stabilized and become only “hobby farming” and no longer be qualified. ...

The issue in each of the said appeals is whether the profits derived from the purchase and sale of a 50-acre parcel of land in Scarborough is to be considered as a capital gain or whether it is taxable income from a business within the meaning of sections 3, 9 and 248 of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63, as amended. ... Mr Meles suggests that the situation in which the appellants find themselves is quite similar and that the profit realized should also be considered as capital gain. ...

In his view, the difficulties that may arise, years later, in trying to ascertain the true facts and the administrative problems involved are such that when an assessment is based on a specific fact and no appeal is taken to contest it, the whole matter must then be considered closed: the Revenue Department should not be faced with the possibility of a new challenge to the same fact in the taxpayer’s computation of his income for subsequent years. ... But such value, to be considered, must be demonstrable, real, economic value—as was obviously the case in the two decisions cited by counsel for the defendant, MNR v Malloney’s Studio Limited, [1975] CTC 542: 75 DTC 5377 and The Queen v William Baziuk, [1976] CTC 787; 77 DTC 5001. ...