Search - considered

Subsection 118.4(1) of the Act reads as follows: 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 may 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 (i) 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. ...

The Minister, in his Re-Assessment dated November 10, 1994, disallowed the claim for a terminal loss and considered the Appellant’s loss a capital loss. 14. ...

GST for 2007 and 2008 and payroll for 2008 were considered in a second letter. ...

He considered himself only an investor and only took protective action when almost forced to do so. ...

We agree with the annotation to the report that the case would have been otherwise decided had the section been considered by the court. ...

Again the issue was whether the fact that the sums received were exclusively for the maintenance of the children deprived the recipient of the discretion that was necessary in order for these payments to be considered as allowances within the meaning of subsection 56(12) of the Act, 1 and consequently should not be included in the custodial former spouse"s income under paragraphs 56(1)(b), (c) or (c.1) of the Act. 1 [2]      We are all of the view that the argument of counsel for the applicants, which in a nutshell would insert the adjective "absolute" before the word "discretion" in subsection 56(12) of the Act so that the slightest general earmarking of a support payment would mean that it could no longer be characterized as a taxable allowance, is untenable given the context in which the provision is found. ...

Both counsel agreed that the Canada-US Tax Convention Act, SC 1943-44, 7 & 8 Geo VI, c 21, really need not be considered in the case at bar for the Convention only applies if the plaintiff was in fact carrying on business in Canada or if it had industrial or commercial profits derived from Canadian sources. ...

Further, the Respondent’s position is that the only taxation year before the Court is 2011, and what the Minister did and did not do with respect to the Appellant’s tuition credits claimed for 2012 is irrelevant and is not a factor to be considered by the Court. ...

Specifically the appellant seeks to deduct as expenses, for the 1974 taxation year, royalty payments made to a provincial government; the deduction of such expenses after May 6, 1974, would be contrary to the terms of paragraph 18(1)(m) of the Act. 18. (1) In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or property no deduction shall be made in respect of (m) any amount (other than a prescribed amount) paid or payable by virtue of an obligation imposed by statute or a contractual obligation substituted for an obligation imposed by statute to (i) Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, (ii) an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or (iii) a Corporation, commission or association that is controlled by Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province or by an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province as a royalty, tax (other than a tax or portion thereof that may reasonably be considered to be a municipal or school tax), lease rental or bonus or as an amount, however described, that may reasonably be regarded as being in lieu of any such amount, and that may reasonably be regarded as being in relation to (iv) the acquisition, development or ownership of a Canadian resource property, or (v) the production in Canada of (A) petroleum, natural gas or related hydrocarbons from a natural accumulation of petroleum or natural gas in Canada (other than a mineral resource) or from an oil or gas well in Canada, (B) metal or minerals (other than iron or petroleum or related hydrocarbons) from a mineral resource in Canada to any stage that is not beyond the prime metal stage or its equivalent, (C) iron from a mineral resource in Canada to any stage that is not beyond the pellet stage or its equivalent, or (D) petroleum or related hydrocarbons from tar sands from a mineral resource in Canada to any stage that is not beyond the crude oil stage or its equivalent; We do not agree. ...

As the appellant had also changed his accounting firm (and this is probably where the confusion arose), the accountant who had filed the notice of objection considered that he had no instructions to proceed. ...