Search - considered

He said that his company was considered more of a middle-of-the-road station. ... About this time Mr Jack Kent Cooke, who was the owner of the Station and had sent Mr Daly to the station in the first place, decided to move to the United States and become a US citizen, whereupon the Board of Broadcast Governors insisted that he sell his station, as it was not considered in the best interest of the Canadian communications system to have a non-resident in control of a Canadian radio station. ...

.* [1] This confirms that trading is an activity which requires highly developed skill and experience and it makes one wonder whether an unskilled person could nevertheless be considered to be a trader within the terms of the Income Tax Act. ... However, one should, in my view, give adequate weight to the opinion of what, in professional trading circles, is considered to be “trading” in securities. ...

The area is now called Kirkcaldy Heights and in a brochure prepared by the Municipal Planning Branch of the Manitoba Government in 1969 it is indicated that the corner of subject property where Francis wished to construct his restaurant is still considered suitable for such a use. ... The learned Chief Justice said in that case: Where the relevant facts as at the time of purchase are considered together with the subsequent events and the affirmations of the appellant’s shareholders, it is not realistic to conclude that the only possibility that motivated the acquisition was the ultimate creation and retention of a very Substantial housing development. ...

Subsection 56(2) was carefully considered by my brother Cattanach, J in the case of Udell v MNR, [1969] CTC 704. ... There is some irony in this situation where a taxpayer faces a penalty under subsection 56(2) through the alleged gross negligence of his agent, an agent considered by the taxpayer to be expert in this field. ...

Even if the Appellant could be considered as having purchased the lands with the expectation of reselling them at a profit (which is actually contrary to the evidence), this intention would not, of itself, be sufficient to stamp an isolated transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade. ... But on these facts also, when considered in relation to such authorities cited above as Cosmos Inc v MNR (supra), Valclair Investment Co Ltd v MNR (supra); and MNR v Lawee (supra), it is with some hesitation that I find that such property was inventory of an adventure in the nature of trade, and that the facts are sufficient “to stamp [this] isolated transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade”. ...

There appears to be two questions to be considered in seeking the proper disposition of this appeal, first, would it be correct to treat the real estate activities of Debco at all relevant times as being separate and distinct from its shareholders, and secondly, would it be correct to treat the real estate profit of $19,623.27 realized by Debco in its 1967 taxation year as a non-taxable capital gain as contended by it. ... When Mr Jackson discovered to his chagrin that Mr Brotherston had not prepared himself to give the above-mentioned information in the course of his testimony, and that his memory was generally extremely vague as to his various real estate activities — Mr Brotherston being a builder had been involved, of course, in quite a few transactions — he (Mr Jackson) commented with good and sufficient reason in my view: I have considered that everything relating to the company and its immediate shareholders is so closely tied together as to make it relevant. ...

The farm property was resold after three years for a profit of $80,000, which the Minister considered income. ... While the whole basis of my earlier decision in that case was that Adanac (or Edward Mallek, its controlling shareholder) moved hurriedly to purchase the property in question therein (it adjoined his store property) when it was offered to him for $30,000 or at a figure less than /2 of the price of $62,000 at which it was posted for sale two and a half years earlier knowing perfectly well that there was hardly a ghost of a chance that he could make use of it in his business known as Eddy’s, and that he had at the time of the acquisition of the said property the alternative intention of turning it to account at a profit as he actually did do within 2 years less 16 days of its purchase, I propose to limit my comments herein with respect to the final decision in the Adanac case to the matter which the learned deputy judge in that appeal considered to be so relevant and vital to his decision, namely that Adanac did not have the necessary corporate power in its memorandum of association to enter into the business transaction which produced the profit the Minister sought to tax in that case and failed completely in his efforts to do so. ...

According to him, the amount of $6,532.21 could in no way whatsoever be considered as an asset for Risteen and no one including Atkinson and Atkinson could get it back. ... Such incidental income from loans could be considered as incidental to his professional fees and could be branded as such. ...

He also stated that the fishermen are not covered by unemployment insurance because they are considered to be employers; that in 1964 a salary of $7,800 for the appellant was set up in the books of the company from which he was to withdraw $4,000 in each of the next two years; that he suggested to the appellant that he stop taking out substantial amounts of salary so that a larger fishing business could be built up and also to safeguard his fisherman status so that he would be able to borrow from the government up to $25,000 at a low interest rate. ... He claimed that the contractual relationship between himself and Pallant Services Ltd took place through an oral agreement which, according to the judgments rendered in the following two cases, is considered to be a valid contract: Ralph J Sazio v MNR, [1969] 1 Ex CR 373; [1968] CTC 579; 69 DTC 5001; James A Cameron v MNR, [1971] CTC 97; 71 DTC 5068. ...

We have completed your request and have carefully considered all the information to support your CRB eligibility. ... He submitted that (1) the Respondent failed to communicate that the $5,000 income threshold was “net” self-employment income, or income earned after expenses; (2) that even after having received his application and request for a second review, the Respondent did not clearly communicate the requirements; and (3) contrary to notepad entries, the Respondent did not attempt to contact him for additional information after January 12, 2022 prior to rendering the second review decision, nor was his call to the Respondent returned. [18] While the reasons given to support the non-eligibility decision contained in the Officer’s notes and the decision letter are not helpful in understanding how the Officer arrived at the conclusion that the Applicant failed to satisfy the net income threshold, they must be considered within the context of the full record. ...