Search - considered

Colquhoun, [1926] A.C. 1 at 4, the House of Lords considered the appeal of a London barrister appointed to the office of Recorder at Portsmouth who sought to deduet from his official emoluments the expenses of travelling many times each year from one city to another, A section of the relevant statute provided that: “If the holder of an office or employment of profit is necessarily obliged to incur and defray out of the emoluments thereof the expenses of travelling in the performance of the duties of the office or employment, or of keeping and maintaining a horse to enable him to perform the same, or otherwise to expend money wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the said duties there may be deducted from the emoluments to be assessed the expenses so necessarily incurred and defrayed.” ... The actual appellant cannot be statutorily considered ‘‘the holder of an office or employment’’, therefore the irrelevancy of the pronouncement above becomes at once apparent. ...

., in the Fraser case which I have cited, said at p. 489: This passage in the reasons of my brother Smith was not part of the ratio decidendi but it was the considered opinion of the four judges who constituted the majority of the Court. ... I have fully considered the able argument addressed to us by Mr. Forsyth and my conclusion is that, when sections 86 and 87 are read together, this transaction falls within the category of cases described by section 87(d), and that the view expressed by my brother Smith in Fraser’s case is the view which ought to govern us in the disposition of this appeal. ...

The ‘‘services rendered’’, which the learned judge considered the payments were for, were the employment of the respondent’s time and effort as above, including the placing of the manufacturer’s name ‘‘first on the order form’’ used by the respondent as well as on the first page of its catalogue. ... The learned trial judge considered that it was not the intention of Smith Brothers to be a party to the “dumping” of goods into Canada. ...

There are two statutory definitions to be considered. Section 2(b) of the Family Allowances Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 109, for the purposes of that Act, defines a ‘‘child’’ as follows: “2. ... According to this definition it is the situation in the last month of the taxation year in respect of which the expression is being applied that must be considered. ...

The Fleck case does not, in my opinion, hold that in a case, such as the instant case, where the company in issuing shares as a stock dividend does not at the same time commit itself to immediate redemption, its acts can be considered as being anything else than capitalization of income, binding as such upon the shareholders. The Fleck case has been considered and discussed by Judges of the High Court in a number of other Ontario cases but I do not think I need refer to such other cases except to say, with all respect to any contrary view expressed in any of such cases, that the Fleck case cannot, in my opinion, be distinguished on the ground that the company concerned was a Dominion company and not an Ontario company. ...

Next to be considered is the more important question, namely, the expenditure ($10,857) said to have been made by the appellant for the purpose of gaining income from his shares in "‘C‘‘ company. ... To ascertain the appellant’s intent at the time he retained counsel and on their advice applied for the winding-up order, I consider the court should not rely only on his statement but should weigh it in the light of his conduct, and other relevant facts and circumstances disclosed in the record should also be considered. ...

Dorothy Johnson who was the owner of the remaining two-thirds of the issued shares of that company; she also received in 1948 certain sums from the liquidator, and to her declared income the respondent added two-thirds of what was considered to be the undistributed income of the company. ... Both have taken an appeal to this Court and at the hearing their appeals were considered together. ...

In this appeal only the indebtedness of $640,978.29 need be considered. ... Kirby Lumber Co. (1931), 284 US. 1, which indicate that such a profit as the appellant received in this case would be considered taxable income: vide also Magill on Taxable Income, Revised Edition, page 296. ...

As a result, the only question in this appeal is whether he made those false statements knowingly or in circumstances amounting to gross negligence, pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act. [2] [5] Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent helpfully focused their submissions on what they considered the relevant factors under the Torres framework and the significant body of Fiscal Arbitrator penalty cases. ... This factor is not determinative and must be considered with the Torres framework as a whole. [5] [11] Mr. ...

The Minister’s agents uncertainly considered it and gave the Minister the benefit of the doubt. ... The Minister has not considered the objection as she should have done. ...