Search - considered

The Court also considered the burden of proof that was on the Minister in justifying the assessment of the penalty. ... His work was done by others who he relied upon and whom he considered to be careful people. ... Lloyd was not completely satisfied with the work, some of the employees were considered to be irresponsible. ...

He continues: I liken it to the situation dealt with by Pratte J. in the Ramawad case (above) where after holding that the Special Inquiry Officer did not have the delegated authority to make the decision which he did make, he said: 'the decision... is not and cannot be considered as a decision of the Minister; it is therefore invalid.' Judge Porter goes on to say: "thus, everything which flowed from it was a nullity". ... He then signed the formal Order, which reads as follows: The purported decision of the Minister is quashed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment. [12] In my considered view, the decision in this case, and in the case before Judge Porter, because they cannot be distinguished, should not be considered a nullity from which no valid appeal can be taken. ... Having considered all of the factors enumerated in paragraph 5(3)(b) of the Act, I am of the view that it is reasonable to conclude, and I do conclude, that Mr. ...

Moreover, according to Judge Bonner in Donald, the decision in Burgess, supra, should be considered ill-founded. ... The expenses are considered current business expenses to which the prohibition in paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Act does not apply. [22] Here, the Minister argued that the exception set out in paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Act precludes the deduction of Mr. ... By the Statutes of 1944–45, c 28, the payer was allowed a straight deduction and the recipient was obliged to take the payments into income and were assessable as such although it is difficult to ascertain the concept under which the payments fit into income in the hands of the recipient or as deductions rather than personal expenditures of the payer. [46] Not only is support not income from property within the usual meaning of that term, but it also cannot be considered as such given the overall context in which the term income from property is used in the Act. ...

He considered his work at Always to have been full time and, as such, did not permit him to work at another towing company. ... M.N.R. 97-470(UI), a decision of The Honourable Judge Mogan, T.C.C., dated November 24, 1997, Judge Mogan considered the status of a person- Freeman Walters, the intervenor- who drove a truck for the appellant, a corporation carrying on business as a supplier to pizza restaurants. ...                 [37]          Having considered the evidence with a view to paying attention to the overall scheme of operations, I conclude Richard Pitre was an employee providing services pursuant to a contract of service and was engaged in insurable employment with the 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. ... " The taxpayer's expertise in the field of teaching high school mathematics, the presence of a ready market for his work, and the dedication that he exhibited in pursuing his writing career, when considered in combination, led to the conclusion that he had a reasonable expectation of profit.... [46]          Another example of a decision going in favour of a taxpayer is Ron Callender v. ... Lallier's case is that he has considered as being part in his consulting business several activities which, in my opinion, are not business activities. ...

The commercial credit cards were primarily used for gas/diesel purchase and were considered under the “vehicle expenses” category of the journal entries.  Moreover, if the commercial credit cards purchases were considered as intended for personal purposes, the balance was paid out from personal accounts (Exhibit A).           ... In fact, if the commercial credit cards purchases were considered as intended for personal purposes, the balance was paid out from the personal accounts (Exhibit B). 10.     ...

In particular, at what step in the test should the taxpayer’s credibility be considered? ... Step 4 simply makes it clear that the fact that a taxpayer did not actually receive the Notice of Assessment is irrelevant. [7]              The main dispute between the parties regarding these steps is whether the taxpayer’s credibility is to be considered at Step 1 or Step 2. ... Accordingly, I have not considered these discussions to be evidence that the reassessments were mailed. [46]         However, I do find that Mr. ...

He stated: 43. . . the law will impute knowledge to a taxpayer who, in circumstances that dictate or strongly suggest that an inquiry should be made with respect to his or her tax situation, refuses or fails to commence such an inquiry without proper justification. [29]         It has been held that in drawing the line between “ordinary” negligence or neglect and “gross” negligence, a number of factors have to be considered: (a)     the magnitude of the omission in relation to the income declared, (b)     the opportunity the taxpayer had to detect the error, (c)      the taxpayer’s education and apparent intelligence, (d)     genuine effort to comply. ... There may be other factors that need to be considered depending on the circumstances of any particular case. [32]         In the matter at bar, I am satisfied that the Appellants did not knowingly make any false statements. ... This is another reason why they should have carefully considered the information contained in their 2008 filings. ...

He stated: 43. . . the law will impute knowledge to a taxpayer who, in circumstances that dictate or strongly suggest that an inquiry should be made with respect to his or her tax situation, refuses or fails to commence such an inquiry without proper justification. [27]         It has been held that in drawing the line between “ordinary” negligence or neglect and “gross” negligence, a number of factors have to be considered: (a)     the magnitude of the omission in relation to the income declared, (b)     the opportunity the taxpayer had to detect the error, (c)      the taxpayer’s education and apparent intelligence, (d)     genuine effort to comply. ... He was able to distill the governing principles to be applied and the factors to be considered. ... This may not be a major point, but when considered cumulatively with all the other warning signs, it should have aroused suspicion in the mind of the Appellants. ...

“qualifying corporation”, for a particular taxation year that ends in a calendar year, means a particular corporation that is a Canadian-controlled private corporation in the particular taxation year the taxable income of which for its immediately preceding taxation year  —  together with, if the particular corporation is associated in the particular taxation year with one or more other corporations (in this subsection referred to as “associated corporations”), the taxable income of each associated corporation for its last taxation year that ended in the preceding calendar year (determined before taking into consideration the specified future tax consequences for that last year)  —  does not exceed the qualifying income limit, if any, of the particular corporation for the particular taxation year; 251(5) For the purposes of subsection 251(2) and the definition “Canadian-controlled private corporation” in subsection 125(7), (a) where a related group is in a position to control a corporation, it shall be deemed to be a related group that controls the corporation whether or not it is part of a larger group by which the corporation is in fact controlled; (b) where at any time a person has a right under a contract, in equity or otherwise, either immediately or in the future and either absolutely or contingently, (i) to, or to acquire, shares of the capital stock of a corporation or to control the voting rights of such shares, the person shall, except where the right is not exercisable at that time because the exercise thereof is contingent on the death, bankruptcy or permanent disability of an individual, be deemed to have the same position in relation to the control of the corporation as if the person owned the shares at that time, (ii) to cause a corporation to redeem, acquire or cancel any shares of its capital stock owned by other shareholders of the corporation, the person shall, except where the right is not exercisable at that time because the exercise thereof is contingent on the death, bankruptcy or permanent disability of an individual, be deemed to have the same position in relation to the control of the corporation as if the shares were so redeemed, acquired or cancelled by the corporation at that time; (iii) to, or to acquire or control, voting rights in respect of shares of the capital stock of a corporation, the person is, except where the right is not exercisable at that time because its exercise is contingent on the death, bankruptcy or permanent disability of an individual, deemed to have the same position in relation to the control of the corporation as if the person could exercise the voting rights at that time, or (iv) to cause the reduction of voting rights in respect of shares, owned by other shareholders, of the capital stock of a corporation, the person is, except where the right is not exercisable at that time because its exercise is contingent on the death, bankruptcy or permanent disability of an individual, deemed to have the same position in relation to the control of the corporation as if the voting rights were so reduced at that time; and (c) where a person owns shares in two or more corporations, the person shall as shareholder of one of the corporations be deemed to be related to himself, herself or itself as shareholder of each of the other corporations. 256(5.1) For the purposes of this Act, where the expression “controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever,” is used, a corporation shall be considered to be so controlled by another corporation, person or group of persons (in this subsection referred to as the “controller”) at any time where, at that time, the controller has any direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of the corporation,   except that, where the corporation and the controller are dealing with each other at arm’s length and the influence is derived from a franchise, licence, lease, distribution, supply or management agreement or other similar agreement or arrangement, the main purpose of which is to govern the relationship between the corporation and the controller regarding the manner in which a business carried on by the corporation is to be conducted, the corporation shall not be considered to be controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by the controller by reason only of that agreement or arrangement. 256(6.1) For the purposes of this Act and for greater certainty, (a) where a corporation (in this paragraph referred to as the “subsidiary”) would be controlled by another corporation (in this paragraph referred to as the “parent”) if the parent were not controlled by any person or group of persons, the subsidiary is controlled by     (i) the parent, and     (ii) any person or group of persons by whom the parent is controlled; and (b) where a corporation (in this paragraph referred to as the “subject corporation”) would be controlled by a group of persons (in this paragraph referred to as the “first-tier group”) if no corporation that is a member of the first-tier group were controlled by any person or group of persons, the subject corporation is controlled by (i) the first-tier group, and (ii) any group of one or more persons comprised of, in respect of every member of the first-tier group, either the member, or a person or group of persons by whom the member is controlled. 256(6.2) In its application to subsection (5.1), subsection (6.1) shall be read as if the references in subsection (6.1) to “controlled” were references to “controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever,”. ... Thus, a corporation is considered to be controlled by another corporation at any time where, at that time, that other corporation has any direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of the corporation. [33]         Since the enactment of subsection 256(5.1) of the Act, the exercise of de facto control by a public corporation over another corporation has necessarily resulted in the exclusion of that other corporation from the definition of a CCPC, regardless of whether de jure control is exercised by another person. [34]         In this case, the respondent does not dispute that Fiducie financière Solutions MindReady exercised de jure control over the appellant. ... The Queen, 2013 TCC 12, affirmed by the Federal Court Appeal, 2014 FCA 267, the law is now well settled: the determination of the influence necessary for a corporation to be considered as being controlled by another corporation requires the examination of the operational and economic decisions of the corporation in question. ...