Search - considered

., supra, described a number of factors to be considered in determining whether relitigation would constitute abuse of process. ...

  [13]         Contrary to counsel for the appellant’s contention at the hearing, there is at least one case involving a sale of shares that was considered as conferring a shareholder benefit. ...

If the commercial mainstream as a connecting factor is relevant to these appeals, it is the activities and services of the Appellants which are to be considered in this connecting factor. ...

  [38]         At the hearing, I asked both counsel to address whether the 2008 tax return that was filed on March 31, 2009 could be considered an application for the rebate for purposes of subsection 256.2(3). ...

In making a finding on this issue, it will likely be necessary to consider a number of facts, some of which will also have to be considered in the litigation between the Municipality and the appellant, but this is not sufficient to invoke paragraph 28(1)(c). ...

Specifically, counsel indicated that the case, upheld on appeal, considered the delivery of social services to native women and found that there was no reason to confer preferred tax treatment on the taxpayer after the proper application of the connective factors test. ...

The Queen, 2005 TCC 545, 2005 DTC 1436, at paragraphs 11 and 12:   [11]      In drawing the line between "ordinary" negligence or neglect and "gross" negligence a number of factors have to be considered. ...

If renovations which are expressly provided for under the Act must be so substantial as to require virtually gutting all of a pre‑existing premises to qualify for a rebate, additions, for which there are no express provisions in the Act, should (if they are to be considered at all) presumably be more substantial yet. ...

These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective “reasonably prudent person” standard. . . .                                                                                                 ...

The question is which of the two sites must be considered. [25] All the cases cited above heard by the Tax Review Board (Nelson and Viitkar), the Tax Appeal Board (Davey) and the Federal Court (Merten) were decided in circumstances similar to those of the instant appeal, in that the employer's establishment to which the taxpayer ordinarily reported for work was the construction site, not the employer's principal place of business. [26] Accordingly, meal expenses may not be deducted. [27] Accommodation Expenses Accommodation expenses are not defined as such in the Act except through the definition of "travelling expenses" in paragraph 8(1)(h), which excludes motor vehicle expenses. [28] These expenses are deductible "except where the taxpayer": (iii) received an allowance for travelling expenses that was, by reason of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v) [employed to negotiate contracts: not applicable], 6(1)(b)(vi) [for a minister: not applicable], and 6(1)(b)(vii) reasonable allowances for travelling expenses (other than allowances for the use of a motor vehicle) received by an employee (other than an employee employed in connection with the selling of property or the negotiating of contracts for the employer) from the employer for travelling away from (A) the municipality where the employer's establishment at which the employee ordinarily worked or to which he ordinarily made his reports was located, and (B) the metropolitan area, if there is one, where that establishment was located, in the performance of the duties of his office or employment, [29] Subparagraph 6(1)(b)(vii) is applicable to the appellant as regards the application of paragraph 8(1)(h) because he did not receive reasonable allowances for accommodation expenses. [30] In short, there is no single class of travelling expenses. ...