Search - considered

At-a meeting of the Executive Committee on November 19, 1963, two building plans, described as A and B, were considered. ... In July the proposal for building alongside was still the one being considered, since on July 3 Mr Cousineau, director of the Bank and vice-president of René P Leclerc, whose offices were in the Transportation Building, had extensive repairs made to the latter amounting to $50,000, and as Mr Hébert pointed out, he certainly would not have made these costly repairs if the building was going to be razed. ... I must conclude, therefore, that the Bank had decided, in November 1963, to go ahead with an adjacent construction, and though several other proposals involving use of the entire block were subsequently discussed, and some of the Bank’s officers wanted a prestige building, between November 1963 and September 25, 1964 the Bank only considered, and could only consider, an adjacent construction. ...

He was just as adamant in his opinion that cost of inventory in these circumstances would normally be considered as “an otherwise deductible outlay or expense”. ... In my view, these words in the Estate Tax Act have the same meaning as they had in the income tax provision with which Locke, J was dealing in Sheldon’s Engineering when those words were considered, as Locke, J had to do, apart from any special “deeming” provision. ... It also appears to me that while the transactions here in question are the payments of interest and the times at which they were made are the times when the power to influence or control must be considered, evidence of a situation that was initiated and existed before the material times and continued through and after them may be considered in determining whether the parties dealt at arm’s length at the material times. ...

The Tax Appeal Board first considered the question in the ease of Charos v. ... The Tax Appeal Board again considered the question in the case of Pevato v. ... Fordham comments on the fact that, since the same point has arisen on sO many occasions since the Charos judgment, it is astonishing that it has not yet come to be considered by a higher tribunal but that the point has come squarely before the Board in the present appeal and counsel wish to see the matter carried through to a final determination. ...

This would therefore appear to be the sort of question of law considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Rogers-Majestic Corporation Limited v. ... Kidd rather considered the transformers to be links in the T and D (transmission and distribution) system. ... Because it is the transformation in issue that turns the electrical energy into a form that can be used by the customer, this transformation must be considered to be part of the manufacture and production of electricity. ...

If they could have been so used, they could have been moved to Montreal, and cannot be considered as part of the real expense of moving to Montreal. ... Such a loss, in my view, is in the same category as those other ‘‘removal expenses’’ (such as the expenses incurred by the employee in moving himself, his family and his household effects) which are considered by the respondent as conferring no benefit on the employee and which, as a matter of fact, are not added by the respondent to the appellant’s income. ... I would, therefore, allow the appeal with costs and refer the assessment back to the respondent for re-assessment on the above basis. 1 ♦Although, of course, if the employee is away for more than a nor mal period, such expenses considered as travelling expenses may then become personal expenses. ...

Since the St Felicien plant did not materialize and did not at any time operate, can the expenses already incurred by the appellant as laid down costs of the legal acquisition of timber rights which were never used, be considered as a true capital expenditure? ... I do not indeed feel that merely because the expenditure was made for the purpose of determining whether to bring into existence a capital asset, it should always be considered as a capital expenditure and, therefore, not deductible. ... Why was it not considered necessary to transfer these assets back to the appellant? ...

I have not considered the provisions of the amending Act which are objected to, and make no comment as to those provisions. ’ ’ Davis, J., deals at some length with the question of the admissibility and possible effect of the report. ... On their interpretation of the reasons given in that case, this Court would have considered, as evidence admissible for the purpose of establishing the true object and nature of the municipal by-law giving rise to the litigation, two letters addressed to the members of the municipal council prior to the adoption of the by-law. ... The evidence relevant to the issue and considered in the Birks case did not include these letters nor was it evidence of a character similar to that which is objected to in the present case. ...

A-17) and these directors decided to improve the terms of the compensation as they considered the price paid inadequate (Ex. ... The expropriation was considered by B.C. Power, its directors and shareholders, to be a sum below the fair value and therefore the immediate desire was to obtain an adequate or fair compensation. ... On the other hand, I do not believe that these expenses and costs can be considered as being a capital outlay or loss.’’ ...

The issue is, therefore, whether CIBC was paying PC Bank for financial services based on the revised definition of financial service adopted in 2010 which was not considered (nor could it have been considered) in the 2009 Decision. [37] The 2010 amendments included the addition of two paragraphs: (r.4) and (r.5). ... By adding an exclusion for a supply of property (which Parliament did by adding paragraph (r.5)), Parliament must have been concerned that, without the addition of this exclusion, certain supplies of property could be considered to be a financial service. ... We do not know whether the Tax Court Judge, in rendering the 2009 Decision, may have considered that a supply of property by PC Bank to CIBC would not alter the determination of whether PC Bank was supplying financial services to CIBC. [42] As CIBC submitted, and as the Tax Court Judge acknowledged in his reasons dismissing CIBC’s appeal, property referred to in paragraph (r.5) is not excluded from the definition of financial service under subparagraph (l)(ii). [43] Paragraph (l) provides, in part, that a financial service includes: (l) the agreeing to provide, or the arranging for, a service that is … (ii) not referred to in any of paragraphs (n) to (t). ...

The Deal Fee was “paid” by Taylor having the $3,774,241 discussed previously in its bank account at the time that Meston purchased its shares from PIRG for $2,944,616 ($3,774,241 − $2,944616 = $829,625). [44] The parties state at paragraph 96 of the PASF that “the principal reason for the [Share Purchase Agreement] and Meston inheriting Taylor’s 95% allocation of Partnership income may reasonably be considered to be the reduction of the tax that might otherwise have been payable under the Income Tax Act (Canada)”. [45] Mr. ... The use of the word “raisonnables” in the French version of the provision supports this interpretation. [38] The use of a reasonableness requirement in tax legislation has been considered in other contexts. ... Subsection 103(1) concerns only the reasonable allocation between the Appellant and Meston. [67] However, even if Taylor is considered, the Minister’s allocation is still correct. ...