Search - considered

Roberge gave the appellant the following amounts during the 1994 and 1995 taxation years as her share of the pension benefits received from Mutuelle-Vie des Fonctionnaires du Québec: (i) 1994 $5,370, (ii) 1995 $5,859; for the 1996 taxation year, the Minister considered that the appellant had received half of the pension benefits collected by Mr. ...

That lack of exemplary consistency, which may be common and usual in such matters, was nevertheless ill-considered and unwise. ...

The expressed wishes of the worker and the employer are a factor to be considered, but they are not dispositive of the issue. [3] Other significant factors include the degree of control exercised by the employer over the way in which the work is to be done, the ownership of the necessary tools and equipment, the opportunity for both profit and loss by the worker, the degree to which the work and the worker are integrated into the business of the employer, and whether or not the worker is bound to do the work himself, or if he may hire and pay people to help him with it. ...

An expense cannot be said to be incurred by a taxpayer who is not under an obligation to anyone. [6] It is a question of law that must be considered and not simply accounting principles. [15] This is the position taken in the case of Newfoundland Light & Power, supra, wherein Pratte J. stated: Indeed, in order for an expense to be incurred during a year, the obligation to pay must be created during that year; similarly, there is no cost of property to a taxpayer as long as the obligation to pay that cost has not come into existence. ...

The respondent submits that, from the appellant’s point of view, the employer’s place of business can be considered to be each of the work sites listed in the appellant’s logbook. 17. ...

On the corporate hierarchy sales representatives, sales managers and district managers were all considered to be independent contractors all earning their incomes by commissions on sales and not by salary. ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer’s training, the taxpayer’s intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ...

Justice Harvey's order, if read together, have the effect of causing the payments to fall within subsection 60.1(3) of the Act which read as follows in the years in question: (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. [12] There are a number of difficulties with this position. ...

The Appellant outlined, for this latter problem, what he considered was outrageous dealings by Revenue Canada in relation to himself. [9] The Appellant further submits that he has not been treated equally before the law pursuant to his section 15 Charter rights on the basis that he was not advised of the problem with his taxes until three years after they had been filed and had been charged interest for this period. ...

He also stated that hindsight and retrospective evidence were not to be considered and that he had to put himself back at the June 4, 1992 date and assume no knowledge after that date. [10] He said that the redemption amount of $195,000, increased by the cumulative 10% dividend on that amount annually for five years, would be $292,500. ...