Search - considered

[g] (i)... ordinarily inhabited in the year by the taxpayer... [...] except that, subject to section 54.1, in no case shall any such housing unit, interest or share, as the case may be, be considered to be a taxpayer’s principal residence for a year (c)...unless the particular property was designated by the taxpayer in prescribed from and manner to be the taxpayer’s principal residence for the year and no other property has been designated for the purposes of this definition... [..] and, for the purpose of this definition, (e) the principal residence of a taxpayer for a taxation year shall be deemed to include... the land subjacent to the housing unit and such portion of any immediately contiguous land as can reasonably be regarded as contributing to the use and enjoyment of the housing unit as a residence, except that where the total area of the subjacent land and of that portion exceeds 1/2 hectare, the excess shall be deemed not to have contributed to the use and enjoyment of the housing unit as a residence unless the taxpayer establishes that it was necessary to such use and enjoyment [...] ...

., and WOLVERINE SUPPLIES LTD. v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA   RULE 109 MOTIONS IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES   ORDER AND REASONS: GAGNÉ A.C.J.   ...

The judge dismissed that motion, giving rise to this appeal. [4] For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the appeal. [5] The judge considered the grounds for striking a pleading from Rule 53(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), SOR/90-688a (Rules), noting that this is done only in the “most exceptional cases” (Gramiak v. ...

The Queen, Cullen, J. considered the requirements of section 230 and stated as follows: Section 230 of the Act requires taxpayers to keep adequate books and records. ...

.* [3] 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”. ...

Accordingly, all evidence considered necessary by the parties to be before the Court was, in fact, before the Court. ...

I cannot conclude that the taxing authorities would have considered this appellant a non-resident during the year 1973, given a total picture of the circumstances surrounding the period of time he spent in France. ...

The agreement must be considered as valid since June 1975. In the Board’s opinion, the retroactivity to a former date stipulated in a written agreement generally means that the written agreement confirms the existence of a former verbal agreement which substantially contained the same conditions as those stipulated in the written agreement. ...

Decision The appeal is, therefore, allowed in part and the matter referred back to the respondent for reassessment on the basis that the capital receipts in the amount of $74,000 should be considered in calculating the appellant’s net worth as at December 31, 1973 and in arriving at an estimate of the appellant’s income in respect of the taxation years 1968 to 1973 inclusive. ...

It is true that the landlord was under a mistake which was to him fundamental: he would not for one moment have considered letting the flat for seven years if it meant that he could only charge 140/ a year for it. ...