Search - considered

The March 1 decision dealt with the Respondent’s request for an extension of time as well as the IAD’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal. [16] Acknowledging that an extension of time request is an interlocutory decision not generally subject to judicial review, the Applicant has requested that both decisions be considered together as part of the record on judicial review. ... It considered several previous IAD decisions in arriving at its conclusion. [18] The IAD cited Singh v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 30626 (CA IRB) [Singh] and Campbell v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 CanLII 145896 (CA IRB) as support for finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, relying on jurisprudence from this Court in Nabiloo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 125 [Nabiloo]. ...

Determination of computed value Détermination de la valeur reconstituée (2) The computed value of goods being appraised is the aggregate of amounts equal to (2) La valeur reconstituée des marchandises à évaluer est la somme des éléments suivants: (a) subject to subsection (3), the costs, charges and expenses incurred in respect of, or the value of, a) les coûts et frais supportés à l’égard ou la valeur — déterminés de manière réglementaire: (i) materials employed in producing the goods being appraised, and (i) des matières utilisées dans la production des marchandises à apprécier d’une part, (ii) the production or other processing of the goods being appraised, determined in the manner prescribed; and (ii) des opérations de production ou de transformation des marchandises à apprécier d’autre part; (b) the amount, determined in the manner prescribed, for profit and general expenses considered together as a whole, that is generally reflected in sales for export to Canada of goods of the same class or kind as the goods being appraised made by producers in the country of export. b) le montant, déterminé de manière réglementaire, de l’ensemble des bénéfices et frais généraux, généralement supportés dans les ventes de marchandises de même nature ou de même espèce que les marchandises à apprécier, effectuées pour l’exportation au Canada par des producteurs qui se trouvent dans le pays d’exportation. ... Our Court recently discussed the issue as to whether an application for judicial review can be considered notwithstanding the statutory appeal mechanism contemplated by Parliament in subsection 68(1) of the Customs Act. [29] More specifically, in Canada (Attorney General) v. ...

However, had the Tax Court considered the entire series, it could have only concluded that the cross-redemption capital dividend did not reduce 3295’s capital gain and, therefore, did not abuse subsection 55(2). [49] A brief hypothetical illustrates that the cross-redemption did not decrease 3295’s capital gain. ... The Tax Court Failed to Consider the Alternative Transactions [55] By failing to consider the entire series and its overall result, the Tax Court not only misconstrued the abuse analysis but also improperly rejected alternative transactions, which would have confirmed that the series is not abusive. [56] Alternative transactions that a taxpayer might have carried out are considered in the course of GAAR analyses. [57] For instance, in some cases, the existence of a tax benefit can only be established by comparing the tax consequences of the transaction or series actually carried out with the tax consequences of an alternative transaction that might have been carried out: Canada Trustco at para. 20; Copthorne at para. 35. ...

The Respondents did not make such submissions, relying instead on principles advanced in their written representations that limit the availability of mandatory injunctive relief, although also requesting an additional opportunity to make submissions on the tripartite test if the Court considered the test material to the outcome of the motion. Having considered the mandatory nature of the relief requested, I find that it is not necessary to apply the tripartite test, as the principles advanced by the Respondents are determinative of the motion. [45] The Respondents characterize the requested relief as being in the nature of mandamus, seeking to have the Court order that CIL be exempt from having to pay the relevant licence fee. ...

Waiting for calls is not considered seeking employment”. III. Applications for judicial review [22] While three notices of application for judicial review were filed (there are only two remaining), as was required, the applicant filed only one memorandum of fact and law. [23] With respect to the CRSB (sickness), in T-2183-22, the notice of application acknowledges that the applicant was not suffering from COVID-19. ... This evidence is inadmissible on judicial review; therefore, the argument cannot be considered on judicial review. ...

A) THE QUESTION IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE RESPONDENT REQUESTS A DETERMINATION IS: Whether the amount of $21,500, paid by Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited to Canadian Horticultural Industries, is to be considered: 1. as an amount disbursed by Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited for the purchase: of goodwill from Canadian Horticultural Industries, so that consequently: i) the purchaser, Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited, having acquired a Capital. asset, the expense of which is not deductible pursuant to section 18(1)b) of the Act, must treat this asset in accordance with section 14(5)a) of the Act, and not pursuant to section 18(1)a) of the Act. ii) the vendor, Canadian Horticultural Industries, has sold a capital asset, the proceeds of which are taxable, pursuant to section 14(1) of the Act. 2. or as a payment pursuant to an agreement to share profits, So that consequently: i) this amount of $21,500 is a deductible expense for Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited, within the meaning of section 18(1)a) of the Act. li) this amount of $21,500 is a taxable income for Canadian Horticultural Industries, pursuant to section 9(1) of the Act. **'. ... It is conceivable that that restricted scope of the Board’s determination as to which taxpayer is to be assessed could be considered as final and subject only to a judicial review under section 28 of the Federal Court Act. ...

A) THE QUESTION IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE RESPONDENT REQUESTS A DETERMINATION IS: Whether the amount of $21,500, paid by Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited to Canadian Horticultural Industries, is to be considered: 1. as an amount disbursed by Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited for the purchase: of goodwill from Canadian Horticultural Industries, so that consequently: i) the purchaser, Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited, having acquired a Capital. asset, the expense of which is not deductible pursuant to section 18(1)b) of the Act, must treat this asset in accordance with section 14(5)a) of the Act, and not pursuant to section 18(1)a) of the Act. ii) the vendor, Canadian Horticultural Industries, has sold a capital asset, the proceeds of which are taxable, pursuant to section 14(1) of the Act. 2. or as a payment pursuant to an agreement to share profits, So that consequently: i) this amount of $21,500 is a deductible expense for Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited, within the meaning of section 18(1)a) of the Act. li) this amount of $21,500 is a taxable income for Canadian Horticultural Industries, pursuant to section 9(1) of the Act. **'. ... It is conceivable that that restricted scope of the Board’s determination as to which taxpayer is to be assessed could be considered as final and subject only to a judicial review under section 28 of the Federal Court Act. ...

If we continue on we find that the income that he earned is only relative—sorry I’m on the wrong one, it’s section 114 which reads: Where an individual was resident in Canada during part of a taxation year, and during some other part of the year was not resident in Canada, was not employed in Canada and was not carrying on business in Canada, for the purpose of this Part his taxable income for the taxation year is the aggregate of (a) his income for the period or periods in the year during which he was resident in Canada, was employed in Canada or was carrying on business in Canada, computed as though such period or periods were the whole taxation year and as though any disposition of property deemed by subsection 48(1) to have been made by virtue of the taxpayers having ceased to be resident in Canada were made in such period or periods, and (b) the amount that would be his taxable income earned in Canada for the year if at no time in the year he had been resident in Canada, computed as though the portion of the year that is not in the period or periods referred to in paragraph (a) were the whole taxation year, minus the aggregate of such of the deductions from income permitted for the purpose of computing taxable income as may reasonably be considered wholly applicable to the period or periods referred to in paragraph (a)... ... The appellant is to be considered a resident of Canada for income tax purposes for the years 1973 and 1974 and is entitled to expense deductions only as an employee, not as an independent contractor. ...

In my view, interest deducted in a prescribed case has always been considered a capital outlay. ... " Lest the plaintiff wonder about my views on its arguments, let me just say they were all considered and each case cited was carefully read. ...

On the other hand, the respondent allowed only $5,000 per year for farm losses, on the main basis that the appellant had changed his main source of income and therefore he must be considered a gentleman farmer. ... The gross expenditures may appear to Revenue Canada-Taxation to be of sufficient magnitude based on dollar volume to be considered either the “chief source of income” or the chief source of income is a “combination of farming and some other source of income”. ...