Search - considered

During the year under appeal, the appellant claimed total payments of $2,439 and, in filing his income tax return, detailed the payments as follows: STATEMENT OF ALIMONY PAID IN 1974 Paid to Florence Penner, Melville, Sask—For the Months of Jan, Feb, Mar, Apl, May, June, July and Aug 1974 8 x 100 $800 4 x 50 for months Sept, Oct, Nov, and Dec 1974 200 Paid directly to daughter Wendy, attending school in Edmonton, Alta for months of Jan, Feb, Mar, Apl, May, June and July 1974— 7 x 60 420 Feb 24, 1974 190 April 11, 1974 229 May 27, 1974 250 5 x 7/0 in Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov and Dec 1974 350 TOTAL ALIMONY PAID IN 1974 $2.439 Daughter Wendy residing at 10405, 108 Ave, Edmonton The amounts deleted by the Minister were in connection with payments made to or on behalf of Wendy, and consisted of: 7 x $20 per month $140 February 24, 1974 190 April 11, 1974 229 May 27, 1974 250 5 x $30 per month 150 $959 Contentions The position of the appellant as outlined in the Notice of Appeal was: Mr Penner considered it, his responsibility to provide maintenance and support for his daughters, Virginia and Wendy and therefore it was the intention of the parties for the agreement to mean more than what it strictly Says, the meaning being that Mr Penner would make his own arrangements as to the maintenance and support directly with his daughters without interference with his wife and that he would take into consideration his responsibility for the maintenance and support. ...

The point put forward by counsel for the appellant that the expense should be allowed to this taxpayer but denied to others (such as doctors or dentists) did not impress counsel and he considered its admission practically fatal to the appellant’s case. ...

There is no evidence that the prime purpose for its purchase was that alleged by the appellant, nor even that it could be considered a rental asset of any substance. ...

The appellant maintains that the cost of renting an apartment and the added burden of proving meals two days a week ought to be considered personal or living expenses. 2. ...

., the appellant filed a “Supplementary List of Documents” which, however, she considered to be protected under subsection 241(1) of the Act. ...

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

He therefore considered liquidating his investment at an early date before the drop was too severe. ...

It was not stated then or ever that personal use would be considered to and from work. ...

Her Majesty the Queen, 2011 TCC 147, my colleague Justice D’Arcy considered a somewhat similar situation. ...

Not only are associate judges well recognized as “real” judges of the Court, but Associate Judge Crinson clearly had jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 385 to issue both the Dismissal Order and the Reconsideration Order. [15] In sum, in dismissing the Applicant’s application for judicial review and refusing to reconsider his order doing so, Associate Judge Crinson considered the relevant facts and applied the correct legal tests. [16] A palpable and overriding error is an error that is both obvious and apparent (Madison Pacific Properties Inc v Canada, 2019 FCA 19 at para 26). ...