Search - considered

An allocation of hours to perform general functions does not make it possible to determine the reasonableness and necessity of the activity and associated expense essential for the conduct of the appeal. [4]            Finally, the taxing officer said that having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties: The amount claimed of $6,275.55 is taxed off. [5]            At the hearing the Appellant submitted that he was claiming "only the actual disbursements incurred". ...

If it had been, more serious penalties under subsection 163(2) might have been considered. ...

The question then becomes whether that can be considered a necessary disbursement for the purpose of its inclusion within a bill of costs under the Rules. ...

(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. [6]            In Marilyn Friis v. ...

Reasons for Judgment (Delivered orally from the bench on March 19, 2001, at Québec, Quebec, and edited at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 25, 2001) Lamarre Proulx, J.T.C.C. [1]            This is an appeal under the informal procedure for the 1998 taxation year. [2]            The issue is whether the appellant can deduct $26,088 as a support amount under section 60 of the Income Tax Act ("the Act "). [3]            The facts on which the Minister of National Revenue ("the Minister") relied in making his reassessment are set out as follows in paragraph 4 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal ("the Reply"): [TRANSLATION] (a)            in his tax return for the 1998 taxation year, the appellant stated that he had made support payments totalling $48,868, that is, $11,280 for his children and $37,588 for Claire Bérubé (hereinafter "former spouse"); (b)            the appellant claimed $37,588 as an allowable deduction for support payments; (c)            the appellant and Claire Bérubé were married on December 24, 1977; (d)            the appellant and his former spouse have two children: Véronique, who was born on December 13, 1978, and David, who was born on September 9, 1981; (e)            the former spouse brought divorce proceedings on April 24, 1997; (f)             according to the judgment on provisional measures dated July 9, 1998, the court: (i)              ordered the appellant to pay his former spouse support in the amount of $940 a month ($470 on the 15th and $470 on the last day of each month) for his children, starting on February 15, 1998; (ii)             ordered the appellant to pay his former spouse support in the amount of $1,000 a month ($500 on the 15th and $500 on the last day of each month) for herself, starting on February 15, 1998; (iii)            ordered that the support amounts be payable directly to the applicant until such time as the appellant had not received instructions from the Ministère du Revenu; (iv)           ordered that the support amounts be indexed in accordance with article 590 of the Civil Code of Québec; (g)            the judgment divorcing the appellant and his former spouse was delivered on February 22, 1999, and, in determining the corollary relief thereunder, the court: (i)              ordered the appellant to pay his former spouse $1,107.92 a month in support for the children of the marriage, David and Véronique, which was to be payable in accordance with the law starting from the date of the judgment; (ii)             ordered the appellant to pay his former spouse $1,200 a month in support for herself, which was to be payable in accordance with the terms provided by law; (iii)            ordered that the support amounts be indexed on January 1 of each year in accordance with the annual Pension Index; (iv)           declared that the appellant owed his former spouse $50,000 in support, along with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.C.Q. starting from the date the pleadings had been served; (v)            declared that the former spouse had to pay the appellant $30,818 in full and final settlement of his share of the family patrimony, along with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.C.Q. starting from the date the pleadings had been served; (vi)           ordered the appellant to pay his former spouse $19,182 in support, which was to be payable within 30 days of the date of the judgment, along with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.C.Q. starting from the date the pleadings had been served; (h)            accordingly, the lump sum payments referred to in subparagraphs (g)(iv), (v) and (vi) are not periodic payments and cannot be considered to be support amounts; (i)             the appellant's employer has confirmed in writing that $22,780 in support was withheld from the appellant's earnings for the 1998 taxation year; (j)             the amount of $22,780 included $11,280 in child support and $11,500 in support for the former spouse. [4]            The ground of appeal is as follows:                 [TRANSLATION] The support payment claimed for $27,588 [sic] is allowable because it is based on a judgment that was effective on April 24, 1997. [5]            There was no testimonial evidence. ...

Caston was in effect the equivalent of the utility bills and that it should not be considered as rent but merely as a contribution to maintenance of the Property. [5]            The two Appellants maintain that, yes, the rent was fixed in relation to the utility bills but that nevertheless the rent was actually paid to Ms. ...

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK FOR MOVING EXPENSES [7]            Subsection 62(1) provides the deduction for moving expenses. [8]            Subsection 248(1) defines "eligible relocation": "eligible relocation" means a relocation of a taxpayer where (a) the relocation occurs to enable the taxpayer (i) to carry on a business or to be employed at a location in Canada... [9]            Subsection 62(3) provides a list of expenses considered as moving expenses. [10]          As a side note – the Respondent took issue with the Appellant's citation and reproduction of subsection 62(1) moving expenses and related sections on the basis that the sections cited were only effective for the 1999 taxation year and thereafter. ...

It was the Appellant's business and the Appellant cannot be considered an employee of the Company during the l997 taxation year. ...

This requirement, the so-called business purpose test, has been considered by the courts in a number of cases. ...

Therefore the time that the vehicle sat parked in a company parking area, or at an airport must also be considered. ...