Search - considered

This is a true discretionary decision and can only be set aside if the Tax Court Judge has acted on a wrong principle, in the sense of an error of law, or has exercised his discretion wrongfully in that he has considered irrelevant factors or failed to consider relevant factors: Elders Grain Co. v. ... [27]            That leaves the last question to be considered by the Tax Court Judge, the procedure to be followed in the determination of the common question. ...

It does not seem to me that the Appellant’s spouse, who did not even know that the University of Phoenix had any locations in Canada, should be considered to have enrolled at an educational institution in Canada. ... He thus concluded that the taxpayer was entitled to claim a tuition tax credit for what appears to be the same MBA program offered by the University of Liverpool that was considered in Ferre ...

As such, however, they are of little assistance in considering what is to be done after the fact, especially given the egregious conduct of the issuing corporation. [11]     Unlike the hypothetical scenarios considered in the literature, the present case is not concerned with a simple shortfall in the total amount of expenses incurred in an otherwise properly performed flow-through share agreement. ... In this Subscription Agreement: (a) "Act" means the Income Tax Act (Canada), as amended from time to time; (b) "CEE" means Canadian exploration expense as that term is defined in the Act (excluding amounts which are prescribed to constitute "Canadian exploration and development overhead expense"); (c) "CDE" means Canadian development expense as that term is defined in the Act (excluding amounts which are prescribed to constitute "Canadian exploration and development overhead expense"); (d) "Eligible CDE" means CDE incurred hereunder and renounced under Section 66(12.601) of the Act so as to be considered CEE; (e) "Expenditure Period" means the period commencing on the date of acceptance of this Subscription Agreement and ending on the earlier of: (i)     the date on which the Subscription Amount has been fully expended in accordance with the terms hereof; and (ii)    December 31, 1998; (f)    "Qualifying Expenditures" means CEE or Eligible CDE at the date they are incurred; and (g) "Regulations" means any and all regulations promulgated from time to time under the Act. 3.     ...

Because the taxpayer considered the bare land worthless, and would ordinarily have allowed the logged-over land to revert to the Crown for unpaid taxes, it considered the sale an “extremely fortuitous windfall” and a capital receipt, rather than as proceeds of depreciable property (the timber limit) as contended by the Minister. ...

Interest paid to a partner by the partnership is ordinarily considered to be only a distribution of partnership income and not a deduction in reckoning "income" at the partnership level. ... Salaries and interest paid to partners are enerally not deductible in computing the income of a partnership since they are considered to be merely a method of distributing partnership income among partners and therefore do not constitute a business expense. ...

There-fore the appellant should be considered as a farmer of class (2) and the deductibility in respect of any farming loss for a taxation year should be limited to $5,000. ... The several [Page 482] tribunals which have to date considered the matter have held adversely to the appellant. ...

He considered himself an independent contractor as did Sylvan. He stated he would not have driven his car 50 kilometres round trip from Mississauga to Brampton for $15 an hour had he not depended on a non-employee relationship. ... These answers were given considering all workers collectively, yet, each case has to be considered on its own merits. [13]     The assumptions of fact in the Reply to the Notice of Appeal are of little assistance. ...

Walchuk first testified that the arrangement was a partnership of the four individuals, though later indicated that he really considered just himself and Mr. ... M.N.R. [10] as follows: It appears from the foregoing passages in the reasons of the Trial Judge that he was distinguishing between the immediate or motivating purpose of the appellant and what the appellant intended to do 'eventually', and that he considered the decision in Irrigation Industries reflected this distinction. ...

That subsection is as follows: "‘12.(1) In computing income, no. deduction shall be made in respect of (b) an outlay, loss or replacement of capital, a payment on account of capital or an allowance in respect of depreciation, obsolescence or depletion except as expressly permitted by this Part,’’ The line between what are capital expenditures in general and what are revenue expenditures is not easy to define, and it is no less difficult to lay down any hard or fast rule to determine when expenditures similar to the one in question on capital assets will and when they will not be considered to be capital expenditures within the meaning of the subsection above quoted. ... Collector of Income Tax, Bechuana- land, [1933] A.C. 368, the provisions of the income tax proclamation there considered were quite different from those of the Income Tax Act. ...

Section 6302 of the Regulations provides that several factors must be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant for the purposes of  the definition of  an “eligible individual” under section 122.6 of the Act which are as follows:   (a)     the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant;   (b)     the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides;   (c)      the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant;   (d)     the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant;   (e)      the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person;   (f)      the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis;   (g)     the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and   (h)     the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides ...   [9]              Having considered all of the above factors, I can only find the evidence strongly supports the Appellant’s position in factor (c), the maintenance of a secure environment for the children. ...