Search - considered

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. ...

  [12]         During the hearing, I considered what distinguished the terms and conditions of the line of credit at issue from those of a demand loan and how case law had defined what constitutes amounts exigible. ... In short, and by analogy, the appellant respectfully submits that the terms and conditions of clause 6 of the variable credit contract A‑2 were never for the purpose of preventing its debt from being considered exigible at all times and consequently being payable on demand;   24.    ... Further, according to case law, a demand note is considered to be an [translation] “exigible note”. ...

I understand from his testimony and said correspondence that he does not wish to be considered a Canadian subject and as such, does not define himself as a legal person with obligations to the corporation, but as a human creature with rights that are protected by the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Exhibit I-1, tab 10) ... She also considered that this constituted an abuse of process: “Such ‘song and dance’ routines hinder and limit the availability of Court resources for those self-represented litigants who are making an honest attempt to advance their appeals through the Court system in a timely manner” (Cassa, paragraph 14) ...   [30]         Employment and business income, inter alia, is considered personal property within the meaning of the IA (Nowegijick v. ...

Burns testified that the foreshore is considered the area of the shore between the high and low tide, and that this would never be anywhere near as deep as 60 feet. ... It was also the address his accountant considered as Charles Pilfold’s home address ... It would be an odd result indeed if the business income flowing out to Charles Pilfold through the various Pilfold companies is located off-Reserve, while if flowed out by way of dividends would be considered on-Reserve. ...

]   [27]         In addition to these factors, the subjective intention of the parties also needs to be considered. Where one can establish a common intent of the parties with regard to the type of working relationship they wished to establish, this intent must be considered in the Court’s analysis of the foregoing factors ... When considered as a whole, the facts and evidence before the Court suggest that the Workers were not in business on their own account ...

Section 10 of the Information Circular 92-2 refers to the factors considered when determining whether or not to cancel or waive interest or penalties: 10. The following factors will be considered when determining whether or not the Department will cancel or waive interest or penalties: (a) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has a history of compliance with tax obligations; (b) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has knowingly allowed a balance to exist upon which arrears has accrued; (c) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has exercised a reasonable amount of care and has not been negligent or careless in conducting their affairs under the self-assessment system; (d) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission. 10. ... Where an extraordinary circumstance beyond the person's control has prevented the person from complying with the Act, the following factors will be considered by the Department to determine whether or not penalties and interest will be cancelled or waived: (a) Does the person have a satisfactory history of voluntary compliance (i.e., have previous GST returns been filed and payments made on time)? ...

Here Madam Justice Reed questions the possibility, in some instances, of striking out for want of jurisdiction at an interlocutory stage, but does concede that in other instances want of jurisdiction and striking out can be considered and accomplished on a motion. ... Madam Justice Wilson considered some of this in Constitution Insurance Co. v. ... [Pages 24-25] Here we have an endorsement by the Federal Court of Appeal of a less restrictive view of the invulnerability of the corporate veil and approval of the view of Lord Denning that the courts can and often do look behind the corporate veil in order to observe reality. [30]            I have considered the statement of claim and particularly the assertions of the interdependence and relationships of the Defendant companies and what they are purported to have accomplished through their relationships and by reason of control emanating from Atlantic Hong Kong, Atlantic Singapore and Murray Wilgus. ...

I do not believe that the official mark could only be considered adopted and used if the tax forms were effectively issued. [66]            An analogy can be drawn with official marks adopted for Olympic games. The official marks are considered adopted and used before the games actually take place. ... If such an approach was accepted, official marks for Olympic games would only be able to be considered adopted and used when the games actually begin. [67]            In the case at bar, the respondent was not proposing use of the official mark, it was using it in connection with the services when it advertised it and made it known to the public. [68]            Consequently, this judicial review is dismissed with costs in favour of the respondent. ...

The Ontario Court of Appeal considered that the refund had been virtually certain until the limitation had been imposed. ... Rather than giving Ebco the benefit of the most favourable interpretation, it is proper to look at the context in which the phrase appears: When words are considered in isolation, abstracted from their context, they reveal little about the meaning of the text in which they appear. ... Thus, when courts seek to establish the ordinary meaning of a disputed term or expression, they may begin with a dictionary definition, but their task is not complete until they have considered the influence of the other words in the text to which the term or expression is connected.      ...