Search - considered

It was proven that the amounts (capital and interest) were paid by the appellant in his capacity as surety. 4.6.2 In order to answer the question as to whether the second condition was met, it must be asked whether the type of risk taken by the appellant may be considered a business, or at least an adventure or concern in the nature of trade, so that the expense could be regarded as having been incurred for the purpose of making a profit. ... The Board also considered the various cases summarized by Dubé J of the Federal Court of Canada in The Queen v H Griffiths Company Limited, [1976] CTC 454; 76 DTC 6261. ... The sum of $9,300 paid by the appellant as surety for Imprimerie Yamaska Limitée must be refused as a deduction in computing the appellant’s personal income. 6.4 The Board considered the possibility of the appellant’s having an endorsement business, since on three occasions, namely in the cases of Les Entreprises Massawippi Inc, Karol Shoes Inc and Imprimerie Yamaska Limitée, the appellant endorsed companies. ...

The taxpayer objected, and on April 4, 1977 the Minister confirmed the assessment, providing this information: The Honourable the Minister of National Revenue having reconsidered the assessment and having considered the facts and reasons set forth in the notice of objection hereby confirms the said assessment as having been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in particular on the ground that there was no bona fide acquisition or disposition of the Cominco Ltd bonds. ... Mr Tyrala was not knowledgeable in the trading of the bond market.”_“. he was simply following the advice he received” —.. the purchase of the... bonds... was done to create a profit” —“... as such he should be entitled to whatever benefits are forthcoming from the transaction itself.” —.. it is not our contention that it (Cominco) was obliged ‘to pay interest to Mr Tyrala’, it is only our contention that Mr Tyrala was obliged to pay interest to the previous holder of the bonds, and the subsequent holder of the bonds to Mr Tyrala was to pay the interest to him.” —.. the confirmations of purchases and sales are considered to be the vouchers for the fact that delivery could have been taken or made if the purchaser involved in the transaction had held the security long enough...” fact that there were separate purchase and sale orders would indicate there was a purchase.”... ... The Board also finds that the amounts of $1,061.28 charged and credited to the appellant’s trading account at Sandler, even if considered “received” or “paid”, were not received or paid as interest. ...

The intention of the purchaser in a transaction of this nature cannot be considered. ... Since the price is fixed by two parties for the whole property (land and building); Since the two parties are at arm’s length; Since the price is considered to be the right price and consequently the market price for the involved transaction (even if it is not the best transaction to serve as comparison to fix the fair market value of another transaction): Maybe mutatis mutandis, the principle that the courts are inclined to accept for deduction concerning expenses or losses should be applied: the commercial and practical aspects of the transaction must be considered rather than the legal aspect (Hallstroms Pty Ltd v FIC, 8 ATD 190; BP Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation, [1966] AC 224; Her Majesty the Queen v F H Jones Tobacco Sales Company Limited, [1973] CTC 784; 73 DTC 5577; The Estate of W C Cochrane v MNR, [1976] CTC 2215; 76 DTC 1154). ...

The appeals were not heard on common evidence but it was agreed that this one set of general reasons would be written and that the specifics of the individual appeals would be considered and determined by the Board, within that framework. ... This leaves to be considered the situation where there is no evidence of “assignment or other transfer”, and yet because of the bond market trans- actions entered into by the appellants, there was a profit (or a loss) related to the alleged “accrued interest” either on sale or redemption of the security or bond coupon. ... Where there is no evidence of physical registration or delivery, the appeal will be dismissed; where such registration or delivery is asserted by virtue of a trustee or agency relationship, then that will be considered only if it is established that no impediment, including payment, remained to prohibit such registration or transfer to the individual appellant. ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer's training, the taxpayer's intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... Baird recognized that he did not make any analysis of the costs that were occasioned by the respondent in the course of his operation but, instead, considered his own experience and what had been his own costs when he was running his own farm (transcript at 55-56). ... Start-up costs, contrary to what the trial judge said, cannot be considered as the basis for an alternative ground of decision. ...

Paragraph 147(3)(j) provides that the Court may also consider any other matter relevant to the question of costs. [20] Although consideration of the specific factors is itself within the discretion of the Court, [15] no doubt addressing the specific factors and any other factors considered relevant by the Court significantly mitigates the risk that an award of costs would be perceived as arbitrary. [21] The positions of the Respondent and Husky on the factors listed in paragraphs 147(3)(a) to (i.1) are as follows: 1. ... However, the word “unnecessary” must be read in context, which necessarily includes the immediately preceding words “improper, vexatious, or”. [48] Read in this context, the word “unnecessary” suggests to me that to be considered in an award of costs in respect of an appeal, the stage in issue must be completely unnecessary and without merit. [49] The Respondent submits that its own motions were unnecessary because Husky rejected actions requested by the Respondent or failed to provide a suitable nominee for discovery. ... Husky’s position is in line with the Respondent’s own comparative. [27] [65] I have considered the positive factors in the context of the appeal as a whole and the quantum of legal fees claimed by the Respondent and I conclude that a reasonable and fair contribution to the legal fees of the Respondent is the amount of $300,000. ...

Most of the 12 cheques in Exhibit A-2 are listed individually on page 3 of Exhibit A-1 except for two sequences where one deposit is considered to have been made for two cheques. On the unidentified deposits list on page 3 of Exhibit A-1, the $17,132 deposit (dated February 11, 2016) of Exhibit A-1 is considered to be for cheques in the amount of $14,132 and $3,000 (dated February 9 and 10, 2016, respectively) of Exhibit A-2, and the deposit of $4,225 (dated June 6, 2016) of Exhibit A-1 is considered to be for cheques in the amount of $3,530 and $695 (both dated June 3, 2016) of Exhibit A-2. [40] 10 cheques are from the Appellant (inter-account transfers) and two are from a third party. ...

I think, therefore, that questions of law should be omitted from the resolution, the voucher, and the Order in Council, and that if it is considered necessary to detail the circumstances giving rise to the payment this should be done simply and in clear language setting out the facts. ... The payment obviously is not made by virtue of the old Act which expressly prohibits interference with the terms on which Trustees were appointed, and so it cannot be considered as a bonus made in the ordinary course of the Company’s business. ... Fullerton, after the payment was made, explaining why a change had been made in the proposed resolution, states that some objection had been raised to the "form” of that draft of the resolution, and one might fairly infer therefrom that the Minister considered that the departure from the resolution originally proposed was one of ‘‘form,’’ and not one of substance. ...

The consideration was $10,000 in cash, the assumption and payment of the rents and royalties payable to the Crown under the Head Lease, and the payment to the said Robert Williamson Brown of a gross royalty of ten per cent of all commercial production taken from the said lands pursuant to the Head Lease, and recovered, saved and marketed therefrom, which said royalty was to be considered as royalty by way of rent reserved. ... The Operator covenants and agrees with the Trustee that the proceeds of the sale or sales of royalty interests or units hereunder shall be deposited by it in its name in The Royal Bank of Canada, Calgary, Alberta, until the sum of not less than Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) has been so deposited and shall be considered as a trust fund and in the event that the said sum is not so deposited as the proceeds of the said sale or sales within ninety days from the date hereof, the Operator shall immediately thereafter refund or repay to the respective purchasers of the said royalty interests or units in the sums respectively subscribed, the full amount so paid to the Operator and deposited in the said bank as aforesaid. ... Apparently, the assessment of the income in question, upon this basis was considered by the taxing authorities. ...

The fact that their auditors considered this a proper business practice is not necessarily decisive but it does weigh against the contention now put forward on behalf of the appellants. ... ‘‘Income””, as so defined, is, by force of Section 5, subject to the following, amongst other, exemptions: "‘(b) Such reasonable rate of interest on borrowed capital used in the business to earn the income as the Minister in his discretion may allow notwithstanding the rate of interest paid by the taxpayer; but to the extent that the interest payable by the taxpayer is in excess of the amount allowed by the Minister hereunder, it shall not be allowed as a deduction and the rate of interest allowed shall not in any case exceed the rate stipulated for in the bond, debenture, mortgage, note, agreement or other similar document, whether with or without security, by virtue of which the interest is payable Then comes, in the Act, Section 6 which is the main Section to be considered here: ^6. ... Now, it seems to me, with due respect, that it is sufficient to look at the operations under discussion to reach the conclusion that the amounts for which the appellants claimed deductions come strictly and literally within that class of disbursements or expenses which are contemplated by Section 6(a) and which, by application of the Section, are to be considered as deductions which should be allowed in computing the profits or gains. ...