Search - considered

[Emphasis added] (5) No scope for equitable relief or based upon “fairness” [21] The Court also considered the case of Chaya v. ... [Emphasis added] The validity and correctness of the assessment is solely what is to be considered – not the conduct of officials in reaching the assessment (8) No power to amend legislation [29] The Federal Court of Appeal considered this jurisdictional issue in MacKay v. ... Meyer argued that the amount of $79,089 he had withdrawn from his RRSP should not have been included in the calculation of his income for the purposes of the EI benefits' repayment under section 145 of the EI Act, as benefits paid out of his RRSP, being of a different nature, should not be considered as income for the purposes of the EI Act. 5 At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent referred to the relevant provisions of the ITA and the EI Act. ...

At most, the absence of such a conclusion can imply only one of two things, either that the Minister has not exercised the power, or that he has considered the matter judicially, pursuant to Section 13(2), and has come to the conclusion that the facts do not warrant such a determination. ... It 1s, accordingly, consistent with the assessments to infer that the applicability of Section 13(1) was not considered at all—in which case it would, in my opinion, remain the duty of the Minister to consider it and to re-assess acordingly, if necessary— or that the Minister, acting through his subordinates engaged in carrying out the administrative duty of assessing, considered the matter but came to the conclusion that the facts did not warrant raising an issue between himself and the taxpayer on the point. ... Indeed, it is stated in the decisions that he-has reconsidered the re-assessments and considered the facts and reasons set forth in the notices of objection. ...

The appellant’s letter of April 20, 1953, Exhibit 4, must also be considered in view of the fact that it was referred to in the appellant’s letter of May 14, 1953, and the letter of reply to it of June 1, 1953. ... There is no doubt that they considered this to be the full amount of the consideration for the sale of the shares. ... And there is no doubt that the appellant himself considered the payments as items of taxable income, for he included them in his income tax returns for the years under review. ...

On November 6, 1951, the appellant, after having reconsidered the assessments and having considered the facts and reasons of the respondent in the notices of objection, confirmed the assessments as having been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. ... To answer this question, different provisions of the Act have to be considered. ... Before arriving at the above findings, I had carefully considered the decisions on the subject of mutual organizations which were referred to by the parties, because the respondent took the stand that it was a consumer’s co-operative with no income or profit. ...

It was most certainly relevant but it was subject to an exclusionary rule, namely, the rule against hearsay. [48] Hearsay evidence is generally considered to have three components: (1) a statement made outside of court by a declarant; (2) which a party seeks to adduce in court for the truth of its content; (3) without the ability of the other party to contemporaneously cross‑examine the declarant. [23] [49] Among the traditional exceptions to the rule against hearsay is a “party admission”. ... McCombs had not considered such as the 2004 announcement of the Trans-Canada Highway interchange and the general growth trend in the development of the Hanwell area after 2004. [33] He used an additional valuation method for a portion of one of the properties, namely, the subdivision development method which had not been used by Mr. ... He also considered events that Mr. McCombs had not considered (e.g., land expropriations). ...

Subsection 104(19) also provides that the dividend is deemed not to have been received by the trust for the purposes of the dividend gross-up in paragraph 82(1)(b), the stop-loss rules in paragraphs 107(1)(c) and (d) and section 112. [22] Subsection 104(19) reads as follows: (19) A portion of a taxable dividend received by a trust, in a particular taxation year of the trust, on a share of the capital stock of a taxable Canadian corporation is, for the purposes of this Act other than Part XIII, deemed to be a taxable dividend on the share received by a taxpayer, in the taxpayer’s taxation year in which the particular taxation year ends, and is, for the purposes of paragraphs 82(1)(b) and 107(1)(c) and (d) and section 112, deemed not to have been received by the trust, if (a) an amount equal to that portion (i) is designated by the trust, in respect of the taxpayer, in the trust’s return of income under this Part for the particular taxation year, and (ii) may reasonably be considered (having regard to all the circumstances including the terms and conditions of the trust) to be part of the amount that, because of paragraph (13)(a), subsection (14) or section 105, was included in computing the income for that taxation year of the taxpayer; (b) the taxpayer is in the particular taxation year a beneficiary under the trust; (c) the trust is, throughout the particular taxation year, resident in Canada; and (d) the total of all amounts each of which is an amount designated, under this subsection, by the trust in respect of a beneficiary under the trust in the trust’s return of income under this Part for the particular taxation year is not greater than the total of all amounts each of which is the amount of a taxable dividend, received by the trust in the particular taxation year, on a share of the capital stock of a taxable Canadian corporation. [23] On the basis of the wording of subsection 104(19), the following conditions must be satisfied before the subsection’s deeming rule applies to all or a portion of a taxable dividend:- in a particular taxation year of the trust, the trust received a taxable dividend on the share of the capital stock of a taxable Canadian corporation;- an amount equal to all or a portion of the taxable dividend (the “ Designated Amount ”) is designated by the trust, in respect of the taxpayer, in the trust’s tax return for the particular taxation year;- an amount equal to the Designated Amount may reasonably be considered to be part of the amount that was included in the taxpayer’s income under paragraph 104(13)(a); [12]- the taxpayer is in the particular taxation year a beneficiary under the trust;- the trust is, throughout the particular taxation year, resident in Canada; and- the total of all amounts designated by the trust under subsection 104(19) in respect of a beneficiary for the particular taxation year is not greater than the total of all taxable dividends received by the trust in the particular taxation year on shares of a taxable Canadian corporation. [24] The purpose of subsection 104(19) can be seen from its wording read in the context of Subdivision K of the Act. ... In their view, a purposive analysis demonstrates that Part IV tax was meant to apply only to dividends earned on portfolio investments, with the dividing line for a portfolio investment being the connected concept. [28] It is their view that a textual, contextual and purposive analysis of section 186 supports the conclusion that the determination of when a corporation is connected with a payer corporation should be made when the payer corporation declares or pays the dividend because: (a) parliament considered control or significant influence to be a determinative feature of a non-portfolio investment; (b) the declaration and payment of a dividend are actions that are closely tied with control or the exercise of significant influence; and (c) the interpretation furthers the purpose of neutrality. [29] In the alternative, the Appellants argue that if the Court finds that the connectedness is tested at the time at which the corporate beneficiary is deemed to have received the dividend pursuant to subsection 104(19), then in light of the text, context and purpose of subsection 104(19) and existing case law, this Court should find that the corporate beneficiary is deemed to have received the dividend at the time at which the trust received the dividend. [30] Under either of the Appellants’ arguments, it appears, on the basis of the agreed statements of facts, that no Part IV tax would be payable in the appeals before the Court. ... The Supreme Court of Canada in Verrette, [15] the seminal case on deeming rules, stated the following at page 845: … A deeming provision is a statutory fiction; as a rule it implicitly admits that a thing is not what it is deemed to be but decrees that for some particular purpose it shall be taken as if it were that thing although it is not or there is doubt as to whether it is. … [45] Subsection 104(19) creates a legal fiction by declaring that a taxpayer who is a beneficiary under a trust, received dividends that were, as a question of fact, received by the trust. [46] The legal fiction provides that the trust is still considered to have received the dividend except for the purposes of the dividend gross-up in paragraph 82(1)(b), the stop-loss rules in paragraphs 107(1)(c) and (d) and section 112. [16] [47] As noted previously, if the conditions of subsection 104(19) are satisfied, then a portion of the taxable dividend received by the trust, in a particular taxation year of the trust, on the share of the capital stock of a taxable Canadian corporation is, for the purposes of the Act other than Part XIII, “ deemed to be a taxable dividend on the share received by a taxpayer, in the taxpayer’s taxation year in which the particular taxation year ends ”. [48] Under subsection 104(19), the deemed dividend retains its character as a taxable dividend on shares of the capital stock of the taxable Canadian corporation that paid the dividend to the trust (i.e. the payer corporation). ...

The statute, sec. 2(l)(d)(ii) specifically mentions certain classes of persons as in receipt of ""wages” who obviously would not be considered 11 employees” unless expressly declared to be such. ... Howarth [1905] A.C. 551, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council considered a contract made by the Government of New South Wales with the respondent for military services in South Africa at a certain rate of pay. ... The language of the Act is much wider than that of the Imperial statute and considered in Robinson v. ...

In each ease the true character of the subsidy must be ascertained and in so doing the purpose for which it was granted may properly be considered. ... Lord Macmillan considered it sufficient to say that the moneys received were not profits or gains of the trade. ... As I read the reasons of Lord Buckmaster and Lord Atkin in that case, they support the view that, when a payment is made under the authority of an Act of Parliament, the statutory purpose for which such payment is authorized may be considered in determining whether the payment is to be regarded as an item of annual net profit or gain or gratuity and taxable income in the hands of the recipient, within the meaning of section 3 of the Income War Tax Act. ...

It is certainly arguable, though not in their Lordships’ considered opinion more, that as and when the chattels were delivered on the crown site, the crown acquired and as from then retained not only dominion, but legal possession, of them. ... These arguments have been most carefully considered. They commended themselves to the trial judge. ... If, therefore, no other considerations were involved than those considered so far, the appellants might be judged to have been validly assessed qua persons in legal possession. ...

Therefore, Future Electronics had to identify the relevant important public interest(s) in this case and demonstrate that there is a serious risk to one or more of them. [42] A commercial interest can be considered an important public interest, but only under certain circumstances. ... Adams’ testimony, the names of Future Electronics’ suppliers and clients, as well as information regarding its business strategies, have always been considered and treated as confidential by the company and its employees. ... Adams’ testimony, the names of Future Electronics’ suppliers and clients, as well as the information regarding the core elements of its business model and strategic decisions, are considered trade secrets by the company. ...