Search - considered

That may be contrasted with the defendant's position which is that foreign corporations like Norsk are not even contemplated by the Convention, for one must already beinherently a resident—a domestic corporation—in order to be considered a "resident" within the meaning of article IV.1. ... It seems highly improbable that, as the defendant contends, those who negotiated the Convention would have chosen criteria which would have been considered inapplicable as a standard for taxation in one of the two high contracting parties to the Convention. ...

The plaintiff contends that it is the substance and reality of the transaction that should be considered, rather than the form in which it was expressed (The Horse Co-operative Marketing Association v. ... He considered that clause "to be vain tax-planning reasons by Hamill". ...

  [7]               The present situation can be distinguished in that the FCA appeal considered the 2003 and 2004 taxation years. ... Boyle J. whose conclusion was overturned by Ryer J., considered the same issue as the present one, but for the 2003 and 2004 taxation years ...

The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors, which may be of importance, are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk he takes, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task. ... R., [8] I considered facts similar to the appeal at bar. M was president and sole shareholder of the taxpayer. ...

However, what is really important is that the same conclusion becomes even more evident when the expression is considered in the context of paragraph 7(1)(b). ... Under such circumstances, damages even in the amount of $100,000, had the contract in fact been broken or were there a threatened breach, would, in my view, be considered very high if not excessive. ...

(b)         both of the corporations were controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by the same person or group of persons 256(5.1) Control in fact- 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. [34]     The evidence has disclosed that there were two shareholders, each of whom had an equal number of shares. ...

The Minister has assumed that the complaints were considered by a "Peer Review Committee" set up by the Medical Advisory Committee of the hospital and the appellant was permitted to make oral submissions to the Peer Review Committee. ... Such was also the finding in St-Germain. [22]     Blagdon cannot be taken to stand for the proposition that where income is generated in the course of carrying out a "profession", it will be considered to be generated in the course of carrying out a "business", and may therefore be deductible under paragraph 8(1)(a) of the Act. ...

The Queen, [1978] C.T.C. 279; 78 D.T.C. 6192; revd [1980] C.T.C. 378; 80 D.T.C. 6298, the Federal Court-Trial Division considered the meaning of the word "process" at page 289 (D.T.C. 6198-99). ... The respondent filed a partial consent to judgment allowing this deduction from tax. 2 Respondent's counsel referred the Court to reasons for judgment in other ap peals which considered the meaning of the word “structure”: Nova Construction Ltd. v. ...

Having regard to the prescriptions of ss. 97(1), it would appear that he was of the view that only half of the value of the Capri Assets could be considered as having been received by the respondent from the partnership (and presumably paid by it) because the respondent retained a 50% interest in the Capri Assets through its partnership interest (and that of its parent) and remained liable for half of the loans. I need not opine on the correctness of this view although it does seem to ignore the separate existence of the partnership for income computation purposes and in particular paragraph 96(1)(c) which requires that taxable income be computed on the basis that: (c) each partnership activity (including the ownership of property) were carried on by the partnership as a separate person, and a computation were made of the amount of      (i) each taxable capital gain and allowable capital loss of the partnership from the disposition of property, and      (ii) each income and loss of the partnership from each other source or from sources in a particular place,      for each taxation year of the partnership; c) chaque activité de la société (y compris une activité relative à la propriété de biens) était exercée par celle-ci en tant que personne distincte, et comme si était établi le montant      (i) de chaque gain en capital imposable et de chaque perte en capital déductible de la société, découlant de la disposition de biens, et      (ii) de chaque revenu et perte de la société afférents à chacune des autres sources ou à des sources situées dans un endroit donné,      pour chaque année d"imposition de la société; (emphasis added) It is unquestionable in this instance that the intention of the partners was that the whole of the Capri Assets be transferred to the partnership: It is for the partners to determine by agreement amongst themselves what shall be the property of the firm (and the quantum of their beneficial interests therein inter se) and what shall be the separate property of one or more of them... 8 (emphasis added) Since the whole of the Capri Assets were transferred to the partnership, 9 it follows in my view that the whole of their value must also be considered as having been paid by the partnership and received by the respondent for purposes of ss. 97(1). ...

  [20]          Finally, the partners agreed that amounts payable in respect of the retirement allowance should be considered a share of the partnership's income for tax purposes ...   [28]          Income from the profits of a partnership cannot be considered pension income within the meaning of subsection 118(7) of the ITA. ...