Search - considered

However, these amounts were always considered to be advances in accordance with the accounting principles stated above and entered as such in the financial statements. ... Since the payments on account from clients balance adds nothing in the way of a reserve to capital, it need not be considered to what extent that amount could have been deducted in computing OA’s income during the year under Part I and excluded from capital. ... Bd.), the Income Tax Appeal Board considered the application of section 18 of the Income War Tax Act according to which any “loan or advance” by a corporation was deemed to be a dividend. ...

As stated by Justice Woods in Maréchaux TCC, “once it is determined that the appellant anticipated to receive, and did receive, a benefit in return for the Donation, there is no gift” (para. 42). [33] Although I do not propose to review the authorities that Justice Smith carefully considered in Herring, I reproduce below his discussion of “donative intent” as I have adopted it as part of my reasoning in this appeal: [112] The first issue to be addressed is whether the Appellants are entitled to a tax credit for “any part” of the Pledged Amount. ... The tax advantage is not normally considered a “benefit” within this definition, for to do so would render the charitable donations deductions unavailable to many donors. ... His sudden desire in 2004 to make a six-figure gift to a charity to which he had never donated is difficult to fathom unless he considered the entire series of transactions a prudent business deal. ...

Louis’s decision in Ford 2015 must be considered in light of the request for relief under subsection 152(4.2) and the condition for the Minister to exercise her reassessment powers. ... While the sufficiency of documentation could be considered in an assessment of a request under subsection 220(3.1), it is not a condition precedent to the exercise of discretion under that subsection. 5. ... That said, I have considered the applicant’s request for an award of costs on a solicitor-client basis in order to sanction the respondent for filing its motion to strike. ...

During the course of my review, I considered the following factors in reaching my decision that the time for making the Elections should not be extended: a) the summary report stated that the envelope in which the Return and the Elections were mailed contained a postmark date of April 6, 1994; b) the Applicant had filed the Return and the Elections beyond the statutory deadline date; c) the Applicant had not filed an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada with respect to the 1993 taxation year; d) there were no circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant which would justify granting relief in this situation; e) the Applicant had not provided any information as to any other special circumstances which would warrant granting relief in this situation; and f) the guidelines established in Information Circular 92-1 were not met in these circumstances. 14. ... The Notice of Objection was considered by the Minister and denied primarily because it was the Minister’s position that the Trust filed its Returns beyond the delay allowed by the Income Tax Act. ... Linda Ditto’s affidavit, she states, as I have already said, what she considered in reaching her decision that the time for making the Elections should not be extended: 13. ...

In no way can it be considered the principal use of the building as for the purpose of gaining or producing gross revenue that is rent. ... It is at least possible that some of the more substantial appointments to the entrance lobby and to the fifth floor were considered and approved after March 1, 1974 (a year later) when it was determined that the head office move should be made. ... Whatever limited comparative value these calculations may have in the form put to the Board, it might be considered excessive to term the relationship most unfavourable to the rental rate of return. ...

The Respondent considered that the sale of the depreciable assets owned by the Appellant, to which reference is made in paragraph 5 hereof, was not made for the sum of $58,000.00 but for the sum of $199,787.25. ... Alpine Logging Limited is controlled by Rayonier Canada Limited and although the initial discussions and correspondence in 1959 dealing with what would happen when the agreement expired on June 29, 1960 were with representatives of Alpine Logging Limited, it was ap- parent to all parties that the decisions were being made by Rayonier Canada Limited, and although both companies are parties to the final agreement made on January 1, 1960 and executed June 30, 1960, as are W F Gibson and Sons Limited and the four Gibson brothers as well as the appellant Gibson Brothers Industries Limited, it is not necessary for the purposes of these proceedings to go into the intricate intercompany relationships and the agreement can be considered as having been one made between Gibson Brothers Industries Limited and Rayonier Canada Limited. ... With respect to the vessel Norsal, he assumed that: (a) The Appellant in the years 1961 and 1962 incurred expenses of $22,507.58 and $28,853.92 respectively and sustained a net loss in the amount of $18,917.58 and $21,303.92 of which sums respectively the sums of $11,354.75 and $15,186.25 were not related to the gaining or producing of income by the Appellant; (b) In computing the amount of the said loss not incurred in the gaining or producing of income, the Appellant considered that only the portion of the net loss on operation of the boat that personal use had to total use was to be deducted from the said loss and that the excess of the net loss over such sum was a proper deduction from income: (c) The Respondent considered that only the proportion of the total expenses of operation of the boat that personal use had to total use was to be deducted from the said loss and that the excess of the net loss over such sum was a proper deduction from income. 7. ...

It was considered expedient, because of the inter-provincial scope of the millwork business, to incorporate Loewen Millwork (Canada) Ltd to handle this business in which company the three brothers became equal shareholders. ... It was my impression that none of these offers was seriously considered. it was the opinion of the three brothers that the business could not be continued by the surviving brothers in the event of the death of one of them as a family business. ... For the reasons I have previously mentioned, I do not think that alternative plans were conceived and considered as such at the two meetings of the three brothers and their advisers. ...

In sum, on the first issue, the appellant’s submission is that in this case the funds, borrowed from and repaid to the parent company of the appellant by the appellant, were borrowed funds used in the ordinary course of the appellant’s trading operations, and therefore the foreign exchange loss suffered on the borrowing and repayment of these funds should be considered an income loss in the relevant taxation years. ... Many authorities were cited and analogies made (as to the latter, for example, the distinction between contracts of sale and contracts of skill and labour, sometimes considered by the Courts in book publishing cases and in contracts under which paintings or other works of art are produced) but none are of much assistance in determining the issue here. ... The business activities of the persons primarily involved and their activities related to the undertaking are other factors that may properly be considered in a given ease, such as this one. ...

At that time I began to realize that there was a possibility that the guarantees, I might be called on, if the company survived and I had considered what my position was going to be and I had taken advice of some tax people and the result I got was that a guarantee given for consideration, if you had to make a payment under a guarantee given for consideration that the loss would be deduction from income. ... The nature of payments to a bank under a guarantee was considered in Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. ... The balance sheet of Stewart & Morrison Inc. for 1965, Exhibit 7, shows “Stockholders Equity” as follows: Represented By: Loans and/or Capital $65,000.00 Less: Net Loss for period ended June 30, 1965 54,528.23* $10,471.77 An accompanying covering letter from Katz & Company states that the total capital and loans are to be considered as $1,000 capital stock and $64,000 corporate loans. ...

In the light of that very brief outline of the background against which, as I understand it, Section 41 must be considered, I turn to an examination of the provisions of that section in relation to the facts of this case. ... It was common ground, during the argument of these appeals, that, for the purposes of this case, Section 41(1) may be considered as though certain irrelevant portions had been deleted so that it would read as follows: (1) A taxpayer who was resident in Canada... in a taxation year may deduct from the tax for the year otherwise payable under this Part an amount equal to the lesser of (a) any income or profits tax paid by him to the government of a country other than Canada for the year..., or (b) that proportion of the tax for the year otherwise payable under this Part that (i) the taxpayer’s income (A) for the year... from sources in that country... ... (a) of Section 38(1) that had to be considered were ‘‘tax paid... to the government of a country other than Canada on his income from sources therein’’ which would seem to include, in substance, the same concept which gives difficulty here in Section 41(l)(b)(i), namely, ‘‘The taxpayer’s income. '..' for the year.. from sources in that country. ” The difference, as I see it, between the problem dealt. with by the Supreme Court of Canada i in 1959 and that which I have to deal is this: Interest from bonds is in itself income apart from some special statutory direction. ...