Search - considered

No. 1875 (Q.L.), for the objective factors to be considered in determining whether an expense is deductible or not. ... Indeed, in elucidating factors to be considered in determining whether a deduction is to be allowed as a business expense, the Supreme Court of Canada stated the following in Symes, supra, at p. 737:                 It may also be relevant to consider whether a particular expense would have been incurred if the taxpayer was not engaged in the pursuit of business income. ... Suspicious circumstances, therefore, will more often lead to closer scrutiny than those that are in no way suspect. [52]          Counsel for the appellant stated some factors to be considered in determining whether there was a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

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. ...