Search - considered

By letter dated September 9, 1996, the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file a Notice of Objection for the 1994 taxation year and the objection was considered to have been filed on the date of the said letter. 10. ... I)) for the year by the individual or by any other person, for the purposes of computing the tax payable under this Part by the individual for the year, there may be deducted an amount determined by the formula A x $4,118 where A is the appropriate percentage for the year. 118.4 (1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living: (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (1) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ...

McDonald, the appellant had only one or few employees and he considered all the operations as being only one business. ... Its income from management services and the commissions received on rentals should therefore be considered as coming from a different source of income than the rentals. ...

(Emphasis added) Subsection 118.4(1) of the Act reads as follows: For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months: (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living: (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (1) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (11) feeding and dressing oneself, (111) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ... C.A.), in which it considered what may constitute an inordinate amount of time, particularly as regards feeding oneself, a basic activity of daily living. ...

Although this First Amending Agreement might be considered as a separate contract, the appellant’s work was included in the initial contract between the World Bank and the CIDA by reason of the following language: “In addition, they will establish, implement and follow up a master plan for informatization”. ... In my view, there is simply no basis for the appellant’s claim that the First Amending Agreement of September 17, 1992 is a contract that must be considered separately from the Contribution Agreement of March 28, 1991. ...

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. ...