Search - considered

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. ...

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. ... The difference can be minimal. 4.03.3 According to the cases at law referred to by the parties, the different items to be considered are, inter alia, experience in farming, time spent, intent, capital committed and profitability both actual and potential. 4.03.4 Items analysed (a) Experience in farming The evidence concerning the item (para 3.10) is not in favour of the appellant. ...

Mrs Pauline Bouchard, considered as an impartial witness (because she was then estranged from her husband, the appellant’s son), confirmed that an agreement existed in 1963 whereby the appellant would purchase the property and sell it to his son at the cost price when the couple could afford it. ... I am not prepared to accept that the appellant’s undertaking to sell the property at the original cost price to his son can now be considered in retrospect as having been the appellant’s intention to create a trust for his son at the time he acquired the property in 1963. ...

Part of this document shows “LOSS FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES” for the following years: 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,500 21,771 28,699 19,632 20,126 22,789 26,925 7,566 He inserts as an “Add Back” item “LOSS (INCOME) FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES’ with the following figures: 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (2,024) (2,494) 4,838 27,077 14,118 6,878 24,956 2,749 He shows a combined income from the appellant’s employment with his companies, S & M Pizza Ltd and Schaeffer Rentals as follows: 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 39,804 37,091 50,484 56,222 20,759 37,192 17,900 He indicated that his “Add back” represented an unrealistic capital cost allowance which he considered “far in excess of actual physical depreciation” and as an illustration pointed out the 1975 taxation year wherein there was a tax loss of $28,699 but was really a mere accounting loss of $4,838. ... I have considered the cases submitted to me by the appellant: MNR v B A Robertson, [1954] CTC 110; 54 DTC 1062; Bert James v MNR, [1973] CTC 457; 73 DTC 5333; O. ...