Search - considered

Later in the month of March, the Committee of Adjustments considered the applications for severances and variances and turned them down, with the result that the prospective sale of 163 Palmer Street fell through. ...

Archambault Grably, which reads as follows: [TRANSLATION] (a)            the appellant and Rafael Grably have four children together: (i)             Mélanie, who was born in April 1976; (ii)            Olivia, who was born in September 1977; (iii)           Lydia, who was born in May 1982; and (iv)           Mélissa, who was born in April 1984; (b)            during the years at issue, the appellant stated in her tax returns that she was living at 192 Rue Bretagne in Laval, the home of her parents; (c)            192 Rue Bretagne in Laval is the address of the appellant's parents, Thérèse Paquette and Gérard Archambault; (d)            the Minister is of the opinion that, during the years at issue, the appellant lived at 5250 Rue Chabanel in Laval with her spouse, Rafael Grably: (i)             although the appellant alleges that she has been separated from her spouse since December 5, 1992: (a)            the property assessment for the 1999 fiscal year indicates that she and Rafael Grably were still co-owners of the family residence on Rue Chabanel in Laval; and (b)            a letter from the Régie des rentes du Québec dated November 11, 1999, was sent to her at the address on Rue Chabanel in Laval; (ii)            the appellant said that her daughters Olivia and Mélissa lived with her: (a)            the address indicated on the T4s issued for Olivia by Medicop inc. for 1996 and 1997 was the property on Rue Chabanel in Laval; and (b)            the report cards of Mélissa from the Laurenval school board indicated that she lived on Rue Chabanel in Laval during the years at issue; (e)            the Minister considered that the appellant and Rafael Grably were living together in the property at 5250 Rue Chabanel in Laval during the 1996 and 1997 taxation years, which resulted in the following changes: (i)             the appellant was denied the equivalent-to-married tax credit for the 1996 and 1997 taxation years; and (ii)            in calculating the child tax benefits for the 1996 and 1997 base taxation years, taking the net family income into account reduced the annual child tax benefit amount to zero:                                                                                                 1996                        1997                 appellant                                                                  12,702                        6,167                 Rafael Grably                                                         68,261                    69,117                                                                                                  80,963                      75,344 [4]            As can be seen, the position of the Minister is that the appellants were not living separate and apart. ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer’s training, the taxpayer’s intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ...

Those sections read as follows: 118.3(1) Where (a) an individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment, (a.1) the effects of the impairment are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (a.2) a medical doctor, or where the impairment is an impairment of sight, a medical doctor or an optometrist, has certified in prescribed form that the individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment the effects of which are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity or daily living is markedly restricted, (b) the individual has filed for a taxation year with the Minister the certificate described in paragraph (a.2), and (c) no amount in respect of remuneration for an attendant or care in a nursing home, in respect of the individual, is included in calculating a deduction under section 118.2 (otherwise than because of paragraph 118.2(2)(b.1)) for the year by the individual or by any other person, for the purposes of computing the tax payable under this Part by the individual for the year, there may be deducted an amount determined by the formula A x $4,118 where A is the appropriate percentage for the year. 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 can 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. ...

In this context, I note that $.34½ per kilometre is considered to be a reasonable expense incurred by such person when required to use his vehicle for government business. [9] I do not dispute that this takes into account the use of the vehicle in its full context, that is not just operating expenses, but the cost of insurance, the cost of maintenance, the cost of repairs and so forth, but these are an appropriate charge. [10] I note, for example, that in northern communities, it is accepted (and I am speaking on the basis of previous cases I have heard) that the rates are increased because of the additional wear and tear which occurs given their particular weather conditions and so forth. ...

In conclusion, his disability could deteriorate with time and affect his degree of functional limitations. [9]      Subsections 118.3(1) and 118.4(1) of the Income Tax Act ("the Act ") and Regulations for 1996, which apply to a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment, read as follows: 118.3 (1) Where (a)     an individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment, (a.1) the effects of the impairment are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (a.2) a medical doctor, or where the impairment is an impairment of sight, a medical doctor or an optometrist, has certified in prescribed form that the individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment the effects of which are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (b)    the individual has filed for a taxation year with the Minister the certificate described in paragraph (a.2), and (c)    no amount in respect of remuneration for an attendant or care in a nursing home, in respect of the individual, is included in calculating a deduction under section 118.2 (otherwise than because of paragraph 118.2(2)(b.1)) for the year by the individual or by any other person, for the purposes of computing the tax payable under this Part by the individual for the year, there may be deducted an amount determined by the formula                                     A x $4,118 where A      is the appropriate percentage for the year. 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 can 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. [10]     Paragraph 118.4(1)(b) uses the term "markedly". ...

Those words are found in section 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations (" Regulations ") which reads: 9.1 Where a person's earnings are paid on an hourly basis, the person is considered to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person actually worked and for which the person was remunerated. [5] The authority to enact the Regulation is found in subsections 6(3) and 55(1) of the Act. ...

It may be that some of the products used in soup could be considered as for the purpose of maintaining life, but that is not why they were sold by the Appellant or bought by its customers. ...

Fournier are taxable under the general provisions of subsection 3(a) of the Act would disregard the fact that Parliament has chosen to deal with the taxability of such amounts, in the provisions of the Act relating to retiring allowances. [3] [16] The amount of $42,500.05 does not fall within the ambit of the "ordinary concept of income" and is what is normally considered a "recurring receipt". ...

Dussault, J.T.C.C. [1] This is an appeal from an assessment for the appellant's 1996 taxation year whereby the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") included in the appellant's income an amount of $54,590.00 as income from a registered retirement savings plan ("RRSP"). [2] For the purposes of this assessment, the Minister assumed the facts stated in subparagraphs 4(a) to (f) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, which read as follows: [TRANSLATION] (a) on August 23, 1996, the appellant borrowed $98,000 from the Caisse Populaire Desjardins Domaine Saint-Sulpice (hereinafter the "Caisse"); (b) the appellant gave the Caisse savings of $85,380.25 as security for the loan; (c) the security given was a personal property mortgage on amounts accumulated in an RRSP and consisted of a certificate of deposit of $85,380.25 bearing number 0016793; (d) at one point in the taxation year in issue, the trust governed by the RRSP permitted trust property to be used as security; (e) as a result, the Minister considered that the fair market value—that is to say, $85,380.25—that the property used as security had at the time it commenced to be so used had to be included in computing the appellant's income for the year; (f) as the appellant had reported an amount of $30,769.23, the Minister added to the appellant's income for the taxation year in issue an amount of $54,590 as income from an RRSP. [3] The appellant does not dispute the facts stated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) but contends that the Minister incorrectly included the additional amount of $54,590 in his income since a new loan was taken out on December 4, 1996 in order to repay that of August 23, 1996 and that new loan was granted without security. [4] Until August 1996, the appellant had a $50,000 line of credit at the Caisse Populaire Desjardins Domaine St-Sulpice (the "Caisse"). ...