Search - considered

Furthermore, at all material times, the appellant acted only in his capacity as solicitor for Affordable. [19] The appellant submits, in the alternative, that if he were to be considered a director of Affordable, he resigned as a director on October 4, 1994, which was prior to the date when Affordable was required to remit the source deductions at issue in the assessment under appeal (pursuant to section 108 of the Income Tax Regulations, the deadline for remitting the source deductions for September 1994 was October 15, 1994). The appellant argues that he cannot, therefore, be liable for the unremitted source deductions. [20] The appellant further submits, in the alternative, that if he were to be considered a director of Affordable, he exercised the degree of care, diligence and skill to prevent Affordable’s failure to remit source deductions that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in comparable circumstances. ...

(b) an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year, pursuant to a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or pursuant to a written agreement, as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if he was living apart from, and was separated pursuant to a divorce, judicial separation or written separation agreement from, his spouse or former spouse to whom he was required to make the payment at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year; (c) an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year, pursuant to an order of a competent tribunal, as an allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if he was living apart from his spouse or former spouse to whom he was required to make the payment at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year; Section 60.1 reads in part as follows: 60.1(1) Where a decree, order, judgment or written agreement described in paragraph 60(b) or (c), or any variation thereof, provides for the periodic payment of an amount by a taxpayer (a) to a person who is (i) the taxpayer's spouse or former spouse... the amount or any part thereof, when paid, shall be deemed for the purpose of paragraphs 60(b) and (c) to have been paid to and received by that person. (2) For the purposes of paragraphs 60(b) and (c), the amount determined by the formula A – B where A is the total of all amounts each of which is an amount (other than an amount to which paragraph 60(b) or (c) otherwise applies) paid by a taxpayer in a taxation year, under a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or under a written agreement, in respect of an expense... incurred in the year or the preceding taxation year for maintenance of a person who is (a) the taxpayer's spouse or former spouse,... or for the maintenance of children in the person's custody or both the person and those children if, at the time the expense was incurred and throughout the remainder of the year, the taxpayer was living separate and apart from that person, and B [not applicable] shall, where the decree, order, judgment or written agreement, as the case may be, provides that this subsection and subsection 56.1(2) shall apply to any payment made thereunder, be deemed to be an amount paid by the taxpayer and received by that person as an allowance payable on a periodic basis. (3) For the purposes of this section and section 60, where a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or a written agreement made at any time in a taxation year provides that an amount paid before that time and in the year or the preceding taxation year is to be considered to have been paid and received thereunder, the amount shall be deemed to have been paid thereunder. [7] The Respondent agrees that for the $16,900 to be deductible by the Appellant, the order of the Divisional Court must be deemed to have been made nunc pro tunc, or in other words be deemed retroactive. ... There was no clear stipulation in the agreement that the previous payments were to be considered as having been paid and received under the agreement pursuant to subsection 60.1(3) of the Act. ...

[27] The criteria to be considered were reiterated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Attorney General of Canada v. ... Four criteria are to be considered for the purpose of distinguishing between a contract of employment and a contract for services. ...

Although this First Amending Agreement might be considered as a separate contract, the appellant’s work was included in the initial contract between the World Bank and the CIDA by reason of the following language: “In addition, they will establish, implement and follow up a master plan for informatization”. ... In other words, the appellant did not contend that the funds provided by the CIDA in this case were “loan assistance funds”. [20] In my view, there is simply no basis for the appellant’s claim that the First Amending Agreement of September 17, 1992 is a contract that must be considered separately from the Contribution Agreement of March 28, 1991. ...

(c) in the case of an allowance to which subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v),(vi),(vii) or (vii.l) of the Act would apply                 (i) if the allowance were a reasonable allowance for the purposes of that subparagraph, and                 (ii)... where the person is a charity or a public institution and the allowance is paid to a volunteer, if the volunteer were an employee of the charity or institution, the person considered, at the time the allowance was paid, that the allowance would be a reasonable allowance for those purposes and it is reasonable for the person to have considered, at that time, that the allowance would be a reasonable allowance for those purposes, the following rules apply:.... [2]               See, for example, San Clara Holdings Ltd. v. the Queen [1994] G.S.T.C. 84, at 84-3 with respect to s.s. 169(4) of the Act and Metro Exteriors Ltd. v the Queen [1995] G.S.T.C. 62, at 62-5. [3]               See Bill C-62 Explanatory Notes, May 15, 1990, p.63 and Bill C-70 Explanatory Notes, July 1997, p.269. [4]               Canada GST Service, Vol. ...

Professor Brooks has, however, in summarizing some re-occurring factual patterns, elucidated factors to be considered, and I find his discussion generally helpful: supra, at pp. 256-59. ... Traditionally, expenses that simply make the taxpayer available to the business are not considered business expenses since the taxpayer is expected to be available to the business as a quid pro quo for business income received. ...

That is a factor which could have a bearing on the scope of these words. [7] Through the testimony of the two expert witnesses I learned not only what they considered was meant by the word "roadway", but also how forest roads are built. ... On the basis of what "appropriate grading" should a surface course be considered to exist? ...

In a letter dated August 9, 1996 the Minister informed the appellant it had been decided the workers listed in Appendix A- attached to and forming part of the notification letter- were employed under a contract of service and therefore are considered to have been employees of the appellant corporation. ... 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. ...

Thus at the end of the day all of the facts must be considered and all of the relevant criteria or tests enunciated in the case law must be applied. [13] The expression "at arm's length" was considered by Bonner, T.C.J. in William J. ...

The reasons given were the following: [TRANSLATION] I object to this reassessment for the following reasons:- the time given for answering the letters dated May 4 and 31, 1995 was insufficient; our letter sent by fax on June 21, 1995 was not considered;- the four paintings were purchased in November 1990 for the same amount at which they were given to the charitable organization "Fondation Théâtre Entre Chien et Loup" in August 1991;- the four paintings were bought from: Dr. ... The tax advantage which is received from gifts is not normally considered a "benefit" within this definition, for to do so would render the charitable donations deductions unavailable to many donors. [21] In Friedberg, supra, there was no evidence of a prior transfer of ownership to the alleged donor for one of the two gifts. ...