Search - considered

There is no indication anyone ever considered whether such a benefit gave rise to a taxable employment benefit at the time of Mr.  ...   [22]          As to whether the trust distributed the 1.7 million dollars to the taxpayer, I am unable to see how it could be considered to have done otherwise. ... The comments of the Tax Court judge as to what constitutes a distribution from the trust must be considered in light of those significantly different facts and findings to those to which the taxpayer, Ms.  ...

  [36]         In Venne, the appellant attempted to adduce evidence that his accountant was grossly negligent or incompetent. [14] While recognizing that many of the subtleties of tax law and accounting were beyond the understanding of the taxpayer, Justice Strayer nonetheless considered the appellant to have been negligent for two reasons. ... Canada, [19] an oral decision by Judge Bowie, it was abundantly clear from the evidence that the "chartered accountant was either dishonest or incompetent or both". [20] In that case, the taxpayers had briefly questioned the accountant, who told them "not to worry about it". [21] Judge Bowie considered, however, that the taxpayers had been negligent because, although they relied on their accountant, they understood that they were signing forms indicating that they had no income for any of the years at issue, while in reality they were withdrawing large sums of money ...   [44]         Having considered the aforementioned decisions, the following observation must be made. ...

PURCHASE PRICE (a) the purchase price shall be the aggregate sum of $3, considered as payment in full for the 17,920 common shares being transferred to the party of the fifth part pursuant to this agreement; it being mutually agreed that the purchase price so stipulated is consistent with the obligation morally and legally assumed by the party of the first part under the agreement dated May 28, 1970, rights to which purchase have been assigned by the parties of the second part and the party of the third part and the party of the fourth part to the party of the fifth part, it being provided that the purchase price will adjust under and pursuant to the exigencies covered in subparagraph 2(c) and paragraph 15 hereinafter; (c) The Purchaser, Malden Quarries Limited, hereby engages and commits itself unequivocally to reimburse the party of the first part for any income taxes or any other types of taxes (and any interest payable thereon in each instance) actually incurred and paid by the party of the first part on or before July 31, 1986 in respect of the sale of the 17,920 shares covered by this agreement; the party of the first part shall be reimbursed by the Purchaser in respect of any such taxes and interest actually incurred and paid by him within thirty (30) days of his giving notice to the Purchaser of the amount thereof and evidence of payment thereof; it is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that if at any time all or part of the taxes actually incurred and paid by the party of the first part hereunder and repaid to the party of the first part by any taxing authority, all amounts so repaid to the party of the first part shall in turn be repaid by him to the Purchaser; any amounts paid hereunder to the party of the first part shall be added to and form part of the purchase price payable for the said 17,920 shares; (e) that HMS owns or has full power and authority to sell or he can cause the said shares to be sold hereunder, to receive the purchase price therefor and to agree to receive the purchase price therefor and to agree to the terms, conditions and provisions herein contained; 10. ... FURTHER ADJUSTMENT TO PURCHASE PRICE In the event that the sale of shares provided for herein is deemed and assessed by any income tax authorities to constitute a disposition by the party of the first part for proceeds of disposition in excess of the purchase price payable hereunder, then any escess [sic] of such deemed proceeds of disposition for tax purposes over the total consideration paid or payable by the party of the fifth part for the said shares under subparagraphs 2(a) and 2(c) hereof shall be considered to be a gift to the party of the fifth part pursuant to paragraph 69(1)(c) of The Income Tax Act (Canada). ... Malone [2] and considered fundamental in common law Canada, first, the language of the alleged settlor must be imperative; secondly, the subject matter or trust property must be certain; thirdly, the objects of the trust must be certain. ...

The amount of a terminal loss that the taxpayer is permitted but failed to take under this section must be considered as depreciation allowed for the purposes of the calcula­tion of the undepreciated capital cost of such property. ... Brooks [4], at p.506: It is beyond dispute, too, that we are entitled and indeed bound when construing the terms of any provi­sion found in a statute to consider any other parts of the Act which throw light upon the intention of the legisla­ture and which may serve to shew that the particular provision ought not to be construed as it would be if considered alone and apart from the rest of the Act. ... I am therefore of the view that in calculating the undepreciated capital cost of depreciable property of a class, the amount of a terminal loss that the taxpayer was permitted but failed to take under Regulation 1100(2) must be considered as "depreciation allowed" for the purposes of the calculation of the undepreciated capital cost of such property. ...

Alternatively, defendant contends that the construction and sale of the hydroplane floats was a speculative operation and that for this reason the bad debt should be considered as resulting from an adventure in the nature of trade and deductible as a loss in the calculation of his income. ... He considered the shares to be worthless and did not consider the ‘acquiring of these shares as an inducement for the making of the loans, even though the $111,500 with which we are here concerned was advanced after he and Mr Bolduc became shareholders. ... While there is no doubt that the matter in issue was an important and interesting one and that counsel for defendant is experienced in these matters and can be presumed to have devoted considerable time to the preparation of the case, it nevertheless appears to me to be contrary to the spirit and intention of subsection 178(2) to argue that on the one hand the Minister should pay all reasonable and proper costs of the taxpayer because the amount of the tax involved in the assessments for the year which is before the Court does not exceed $2,500, while, on the other hand, in estimating what are the reasonable and proper costs, consideration should be given to the fact that a sum substantially more than this will be involved if the total amount of income to be deducted over a period of years is taken into consideration, and that because of this the importance of the matter is consider- ably greater than one involving a tax of under $2,500 with the result that if the fees which taxpayer’s counsel charges to taxpayer reflect the fact that this larger sum is in issue, these should be considered as reasonable and proper costs of the taxpayer which the Minister will be obliged to pay under subsection 178(2). ...

  [33]    As for the potential application of section 245, counsel for the appellant referred to subsection 245(3) of the Act:   245(3)  Avoidance transaction — An avoidance transaction means any transaction   (a)        that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit; or   (b)        that is part of a series of transactions, which series, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit ... According to the main argument made by the son, who was representing his mother in court, the series of transactions could not be considered an abuse of the provisions of the Income Tax Act because a sale of the shares to a corporation controlled by a third party would have been acceptable. ...

The Appellant stated that the promised one-ninth of the estate was not a benefit he considered in accepting the offer of employment contained in the March 11, 1987 letter. ... In Tsiaprailis, it was only that part of the settlement amount allocated to the arrears owing by the insurer that were considered income. The part of the settlement amount located to the right to future benefits was considered a capital receipt, not an income receipt. ...

If it is determined that multiple supplies were made then the deeming provisions in section 138 and 139 of the HST Legislation must be considered. ...   [29]          The factual question of whether a supplier has made a single supply or multiple supplies has been considered by the Court and the Federal Court of Appeal on numerous occasions. ...   [31]          When reaching his decision Justice Rip made the following observations:   One factor to be considered is whether or not the alleged separate supply can be realistically omitted from the overall supply. ...