Search - considered

Gorev that it considered the following amounts to be unreported income:   Table 3   Year Amount 2006 $35,711.30 2007 21,800.00 2008 41,500.00 Total $99,011.30 [8]              On December 31, 2012, the CRA, on behalf of the Minister, issued Notices of Reassessment (the “Initial Notices of Reassessment”) for 2006, 2007 and 2008, [9] which increased Mr. ... I couldn’t – I was able not to fill out the tax return, but since I had considered myself, at the time, a resident of Canada I considered it was necessary to pay taxes, at least, this one. ... Gorev and his advisors to the CRA over the next two-and-a-half years, the aggregate amount that the CRA considered to be unreported income was significantly reduced to $63,203.80 (as set out in Table 4). ...

Rowe in 2006, 2007 and 2008. [22]         In Chénard, Bédard J considered an appeal by a taxpayer who engaged Fiscal Arbitrators to file adjustment requests for eight previous taxation years, so as to report net business losses in amounts sufficient to give rise to tax refunds for each of those years. ... Accordingly, after having considered the factors set out above, I am of the view that Mr. ... A taxpayer’s opportunity to detect an error in his or her income tax return is one of the factors to be considered in drawing the line between ordinary negligence and gross negligence; see DeCosta, supra note 20, ¶11. [28]          Exhibit R-1, page 28. ...

The Decision of the Tax Court [14]            The Tax Court considered three issues, only two of which are relevant to this appeal. ... The first matter considered was that the appellant calculated the annual resort fee in part on the basis of expenses other than vacation home operating costs. ... Finally, the Court considered the evidence that the Canadian developer had an option not to pay the annual resort fee if it elected to subsidize the financial operations of the appellant. ...

There is just one interconnected arrangement here, and no part of it can be considered a gift that the appellant gave in expectation of no return. ... Miller J. considered the nature of the legal arrangements between the Appellants and the Lenders and concluded that the loans were not subject to a Quistclose trust. [72]   He described the relevant legal arrangements between the Appellants and the Lenders in the following terms: 1.   ... Just as in Maréchaux, in each case before me there was just one interconnected transaction and no part of it can be considered a gift that was given in expectation of no return. [110]   As Woods J. said in Maréchaux, “the financing was not provided in isolation to the Donation. ...

Manhue to the CRA. [31] [17]   After having considered the evidence of Mr. ... Watts’ testimony and whether he even considered that he should not file the income tax return sent to him by Fiscal Arbitrators. ... Manhue, like every Canadian taxpayer, was subject to a duty to report his income and expenses accurately and honestly. [63]   As indicated above, wilful blindness may support a finding of gross negligence. [123] One of the reasons why there may be some overlap between wilful blindness and gross negligence is that three of the factors considered in Torres in determining wilful blindness are also factors to be considered in determining gross negligence: In drawing the line between “ordinary” negligence or neglect and “gross” negligence a number of factors have to be considered. ...

Issues [10]   Having considered the parties’ written and oral arguments, I would characterize the issues to be decided by the Court as follows: Should the Court review a copy of the Report? ... In R v McKinlay Transport Ltd., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627 [McKinlay], the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether s 231(3) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148 violated the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure in s 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ... The Court considered jurisprudence, including McKinlay, and held as follows at paragraph 20: [20]   As the Minister had been conducting an extensive audit of AGT, this is the case of a genuine inquiry into the income tax liability of AGT. ...

  … Contractual interpretation involves issues of mixed fact and law as it is an exercise in which the principles of contractual interpretation are applied to the words of the written contract, considered in light of the factual matrix. [31] The above comments indicate that, in interpreting a tax-dispute settlement agreement, a court should apply the principles of contractual interpretation to the words of the written contract, considered in light of the factual matrix (i.e., the surrounding circumstances and the setting in which the agreement was made, including the purpose of the agreement, the genesis of the settlement, and the background and context in which the parties were operating). ... Savics acknowledges that the Minister’s capacity to enter into a binding settlement agreement to resolve a tax dispute is limited by the principle that the agreement, properly interpreted, cannot be contrary to the ITA. [61] The requirement that tax settlements be principled was considered in Galway, where the Federal Court – Appeal Division (the “FCAD”) stated: 4 ... Therefore, the question of whether the reassessment could be referred back to the Minister, for reassessment of a greater amount of tax, did not need to be considered by Justice Cartwright. [70] [52]   Counsel for Mr. ...

Visa Account and Bank Account [25]   One of the liabilities considered by the CRA in conducting its net worth analysis was Mr. and Mrs. ... Duffy (who was not cross-examined) that the property tax liability was not considered by the CRA when it calculated the outstanding liabilities of Mr. and Mrs. ... Duffy that, as he only withdrew pesos having a Canadian-currency equivalency of $4,694 in Mexico, it is only that amount which should be considered as a personal expenditure. [48]   The CRA auditor stated that, in performing the net worth analysis, the CRA considered all the money withdrawn from the Scotiabank account as being used for personal expenditures. ...

The CFIA initially concluded that the “Product of Israel” label “would not be acceptable and would be considered misleading as per subsection 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act ”. ... It further advised the LCBO that its initial decision had not fully considered the implications of CIFTA, and posted a statement to this effect on its website. ... While I have carefully considered this evidence and these arguments, I have determined that it is not necessary to decide this issue. ...

Despite the Prothonotary’s comments, once again, rather than relying on arguments targeted at each type of claim and relief sought, the respondent asked for the dismissal of the entire action, even in its amended form based on what the respondent considered the only genuine issues.   ... Certainly, it should be done in a manner that would not preclude a party from pursuing an otherwise valid claim because it would now be time-barred. [28]   In the same manner that the respondent’s motion, which refers to Rule 221 as opposed to Rule 215, was considered a proper motion for summary judgment by the Federal Court, despite this error, Mr. ... There are other relevant Tariff items, but my point here is that the words “money” and “currency” are not used in the Customs Tariff or in the Customs Act except when a sum of money needs to be paid or value is considered (see for example sections 55, 132 and 133 of the Customs Act). ...