Search - considered

  [30]         The Federal Court of Appeal in Gunn wrote:   83        In my view, the combination question should be interpreted to require only an examination of the cumulative effect of the aggregate of the capital invested in farming and a second source of income, the aggregate of the income derived from farming and a second source of income, and the aggregate of the time spent on farming and on the second source of income, considered in the light of the taxpayer’s ordinary mode of living, farming history, and future intentions and expectations. ... Curtis’s farming income predominate, as detailed below, I am satisfied on facts in evidence and described above that, once the factors enumerated in Moldowan and in Gunn of reasonable expectation of income, ordinary mode and habit of work, time spent, capital committed, actual and potential profitability, ordinary mode of living, farming history, and future intentions and expectations, are considered and applied, Mr.  ... The Queen, [7] Hershfield J. also addressed potential profitability:   52        My reading of this formulation of the combination test is that it requires that the chief source factors being examined in respect of farming, including potential profitability, be considered relative to the chief source factors being examined in respect of the second source being included in the combination. ...

(the "Franchise Committee") considered the Application. The role of the Franchise Committee was as follows: (i)          to review the PIP report which had been negotiated between the parties, and to further determine whether Franchising Inc. was prepared to grant the Appellant a waiver with respect to any of Franchising Inc.'s standards; (ii)         to review the Appellant to determine whether the Appellant was capable of operating a Holiday Inn Franchise; and (iii)        to examine the location of the proposed Holiday Inn hotel and determine whether granting the franchise would adversely affect any existing Holiday Inns. ... In effect, Revenue Canada extends the application of subparagraphs 212(1)(d)(i) to include any payment, including a single or lump-sum payment, for the right to use, in Canada, any property, etc., whether or not the amount would be considered a rent, royalty, or similar payment. ... There is no need for the Court to decide what items, if any, could be considered as royalty payments. ...

He argues that some receipts were not considered because they were void of any stamp indicating whether they were accepted or denied and, where receipts filed as proof of expenses were missing, other proof of payment (such as credit card and bank statements) were provided but were not considered. ... We are unable to determine gross or net income based on information provided…   [31]            The record is clear, in my view, that the Minister considered the further information and proof of gross income submitted by the Applicant but that, as suggested by the Respondent, the Minister could not conduct a proper assessment because the Applicant failed to provide proper documentation ...

Peterson considered the child support provisions in the 1991 separation agreement to be enforceable, and that during 1994 and 1995 he honoured what he believed to be his child support obligations under that agreement by paying $2,000 per month. ... Those provisions deal with a situation in which a court order or written agreement stipulates that a certain payment made prior to the date of the court order or written agreement is to be considered as having been made under that court order or written agreement. ... Tossell's account, is not capable of establishing that the payment was intended to represent arrears of child support. [46]            The Judge considered that allocating the $36,000 over the 36 months from January 1994 to December 1996 is the "most reasonable and common sense" interpretation of section 6 of the Minutes of Settlement. ...

The investment advisors with whom he shares the commissions are all employees of CIBC World Markets, like himself, and cannot be considered his clients. ... They are considered to be capital in nature where the training results in a lasting benefit to the taxpayer, i.e., where a new skill or qualification is acquired. Where, on the other hand, the training is taken merely to maintain, update or upgrade an already existing skill or qualification, the related costs are not considered to be capital in nature ...

When the question was considered by the Tax Court, His Honour Judge Taylor answered it in the negative. ... Therefore, one cannot help but wonder how the legislators could have failed to have considered the scenario presently before this Court. ... The background to section 63 in its prior form was considered at length by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Bailey et al. v. ...

At the time of the wind-up MFM was the sole shareholder of Rock Road and the non-capital loss of Rock Road was considered to be a non-capital loss of MFM. ... The respondent further takes the position that Rock Road always intended that the series of transactions in issue may reasonably be considered to have artificially or unduly created a loss from the disposition of the 14.56 Roberge shares. ... There was no evidence that the acquisition of the Roberge shares by Grundy was considered by the shareholders of Shantz or by any other of the Shantz group of companies. ...

He also noted that the appellant's activities could have been considered to be processing if the changes made to the materials had been made to comply with customers' wishes. ... M.N.R., supra, and one of the steps in their preparation consisted of packaging the vegetables, then the packaging activity would be considered "processing" even though it did not change. ... Activities carried on by a scrap metal dealer, such as sorting, removing contaminants, grading, cutting to size and baling, in order to make raw scrap saleable are considered qualified activities. ...

As a result, TD could not claim the loss because the circumstances in which it had occurred “may reasonably be considered to have artificially or unduly … created a loss from the disposition” ... (i) statutory scheme [31]            Former subsection 55(1) of the Act provided as follows.  55. (1) For the purposes of this subdivision, where the result of one or more sales, exchanges, declarations of trust, or other transactions of any kind whatever is that a taxpayer has disposed of property under circumstances such that he may reasonably be considered to have artificially or unduly … (b) created a loss from the disposition, or (c) increased the amount of his loss from the disposition, the taxpayer's gain or loss, as the case may be, from the disposition of the property shall be computed as if such reduction, creation or increase, as the case may be, had not occurred. 55. (1) Aux fins de la présente sous-section, lorsque les circonstances dans lesquelles ont été effectuées une ou plusieurs opérations de vente ou d'échange, ou autres transactions de quelque nature que ce soit, permettent de croire raisonnablement que le contribuable a disposé d'un bien de façon à artificiellement ou indûment […] b) occasionner une perte résultant de la disposition, ou c) augmenter le montant de sa perte résultant de la disposition, le gain ou la perte du contribuable, selon le cas, résultant de la disposition du bien, est calculée comme si une telle réduction, perte ou augmentation, selon le cas, ne s'était pas produite   [32]            Subsection 55(1) was repealed by subsection 33(1) of S.C. 1988, c. 55, and ceased to apply to most transactions entered into after September 13, 1988, when it received royal assent. ... The interpretation of words in such provisions was considered in Canada v. ...

Paragraph (d), the one in question in this appeal and which reads ‘‘That the share of the Creditors in the net profits of the business for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1956, is hereby fixed at $300,000.00’’ must be considered in the light of the evidence given at trial part of which has been set out above. ... Clark, [1935] A.C. 431, the House of Lords considered a payment of £450,000 by a Dutch company to an English company made in the year 1927, to settle the claim of the English company, the appellant for a share in the profits of the Dutch company during the First War and for the release of their right to a share in the profits which might be earned by the Dutch company in the years following and up to 1940. ... (H.L.) 112, 115, ‘There is no relation between the measure that is used for the purpose of calculating a particular result and the quality of the figure that is arrived at by means of the test.,,, If the arrangement arrived at by virtue of the agreement of February 1, 1956 (Ex. 3) is, as I have found it to be, a sale of partnership assets by the various partners to the continuing partner and included in those assets the right of the retiring partners to share in any profits of the partnership, either those which would be earned before the agreement or those which would be earned thereafter, then I am of the opinion that the authorities quoted require the sale price to be considered as a capital receipt, and I am of the opinion that if, when the sale price was calculated by including as part thereof an estimate of the already earned but undistributed profits, the same result applies. ...