Search - considered

However, the Federal Court of Appeal also found that, “ expenses incurred by the payer of support (either to prevent it from being established or increased, or to decrease or terminate it) cannot be considered to have been incurred for the purpose of earning income, and the courts have never recognized any right to the deduction of these expenditures ”. [3] [34]         After reviewing the legal bills and the various correspondence between the Appellant and his lawyer, I have concluded that the Appellant paid the legal fees with respect to the following three separate issues: the payment of child support by the Appellant to the former spouse for P and R for the period ending in June 2014, the payment of child support by the Appellant to the former spouse for R for the period beginning in June 2014, and the payment of child support by the former spouse to the Appellant for P for the period beginning in June 2014. [35]         It is my view that it is reasonable to allocate the legal fees equally among the three issues. ...

In this case, the appellant never resigned as a director, and therefore would still be considered a director until the Corporation was dissolved in 2016. ...

The Appellant’s Position [11]         The appellant stated that he claimed a deduction for the amounts that he paid after the Court of Appeal of Quebec made a final determination that he was liable for the payment of the unpaid bills for professional services. [12]         The appellant alleged that the unpaid bills were for professional services rendered while Val Air Inc. was in business. [13]         The appellant sustained that since he was held personally liable for a portion of the unpaid bills, he should be considered as having incurred the expenses himself and as having himself carried on the airline activities with a view to earn income from a business. [14]         The appellant relied on Interpretation Bulletin IT-467R2 which refers to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in 65302 British Columbia Ltd. v. ...

The reasons of the judge are thorough and demonstrate that he considered the relevant facts and committed no such error. [27]            For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with costs. ...

After all, he was reassessed a tax liability in excess of $500,000.00 for the same period so one can reasonably assume he had the means. [14]          Regardless of the levels of different contributions however, the Federal Court of Appeal in Yates v The Queen, 2009 FCA 50, 2009 DTC 5062, made clear two important points:  firstly, that the nature of expenses incurred with the transferred funds, such as household, mortgage or other family expenses are irrelevant to the determination of whether there was a transfer and secondly, that allowing a husband to live in the family residence is not considered the provision of consideration at fair market value. [15]          As required in Livingston and Yates, there must be proof at the time of each transfer that consideration was given. ...

Agnihotri, testified at the hearing and he explained why BDO’s reply was considered to not bring any new information which may help change the proposed adjustments relating to the appellant’s “Other Expenses” claim. [16]          The CRA’s auditor reiterated the fact that at the beginning of the audit, the appellant submitted only two spreadsheets outlining various expenses to substantiate the amounts of the “Other Expenses” account. ...

[para. 23] … [44]      It has been held that in drawing the line between “ordinary” negligence or neglect and “gross” negligence, a number of factors have to be considered: (a)        the magnitude of the misrepresentation in relation to the income declared, (b)        the opportunity the taxpayer had to detect the error, (c)        the taxpayer’s education and apparent intelligence, (d)        the genuine effort to comply. [45]      No single factor predominates. ...

Below, we have outlined the information we considered during our second review and the reasons for our decision. ...

Said disbursements are uncontested and are considered to be expenses necessary for the conduct of this case. ...

Whether the Applicant’s request for relief in the form of mandamus is premature. [14]   Having considered the record and the parties’ written and oral submissions, in my view the only issue which the Court must determine is whether the application for judicial review is premature. ...