Search - considered
Results 22171 - 22180 of 49248 for considered
TCC
Charles a Beghin v. Minister of National Revenue, [1985] 1 CTC 2034, 85 DTC 48
Even if holding the five acres could be considered as a motivating factor in the appellant’s acquisition of his one-third undivided interest in the land, a proposition which in my opinion is not supported by the facts, it would at best be a contingency plan and speculative in nature because the five acres were to be used by the appellant only if circumstances made it necessary for him to do so. ...
TCC
George Jellaczyc v. Minister of National Revenue, [1985] 1 CTC 2158, 85 DTC 184
The phrase was considered by the Exchequer Court of Canada in MNR v James A Taylor, [1956] CTC 189; 56 DTC 1125, and Thorson, P commented at 199 [1131]: It is, I think, plain from the wording of the Canadian Act, quite apart from any judicial decisions, that the terms “trade” and “adventure or concern in the nature of trade”, are not synonymous expressions and it follows that the profit from a transaction may be income from a business within the meaning of section 3 of the Act, by reason of the definition of business in section 127(l)(e), even although the transaction did not constitute a trade, provided that it was an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. ...
TCC
Hugh B Lambe v. Minister of National Revenue, [1985] 1 CTC 2170, 85 DTC 161
If, as Revenue Canada indicates, mortgage payments made in the year of initial purchase are considered to be “amounts to acquire an owner-occupied home’’, then mortgage payments made in a subsequent year should also qualify (assuming they are made in the specified period) as the character of a mortgage payment is the same whether made in the year of initial purchase or a subsequent year. ...
TCC
Rose R Goldhar v. Minister of National Revenue, [1985] 1 CTC 2187, 85 DTC 202
Mrs Goldhar was required to pay her own expenses — they were not even considered to be expenses of Del Realty. ...
TCC
Dunn Holdings LTD v. Minister of National Revenue, [1985] 1 CTC 2348, 85 DTC 348
These principles are that tax should not be levied on more than the actual profit realized by a taxpayer in a taxation year; the amount of a reserve per se does not determine its reasonableness; the portion of the sum receivable that is not profit to the taxpayer should not be considered as a component part of the formula used in the determination of the reserve where mortgages are assumed; and that use of the equity method in cases where there is a mortgage assumed by the purchaser produces a reasonable result. ...
TCC
Matador Co-Operative Farm Association Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2046, 84 DTC 1038
This, in fact, restrained the possibility of selling and that must be considered. ...
TCC
A G Rodgers Real Estate Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2051, 84 DTC 1034
However, the Court thinks that there is a part of the commissions which can be considered as already determined in 1977. ...
TCC
Josef Mairleitner v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2472, 84 DTC 1426
Therefore, the conclusion is that the appellant must be considered in class I and the losses must be taken into account in the computation of the income. ...
TCC
Brenda J Miller v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2478
The Board has considered the proposal of the Division for a two-year agreement, but, having regard to the time of year during which the arbitration process has been taking place, and insufficient evidence on 1980 and 1981 economic trends presented at hearing, it is agreed that the current agreement be for a one-year period commencing January 1, 1980. 3. ...
TCC
Phyllis I Moore v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2508, 84 DTC 1452
The relevant section of the Income Tax Act to be considered is paragraph 8(1)(h) under the heading “deductions allowed”’: Sec. 8(1) In computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto: (h) where the taxpayer, in the year, (i) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of his employment away from his employer’s place of business or in different places, (ii) under the contract of employment was required to pay the travelling expenses incurred by him in the performance of his duties of his office or employment, and (iii) was not in receipt of an allowance for travelling expenses that was, by virtue of subparagraph 6(l)(b)(v), (vi) or (vii), not included in computing his income and did not claim any deduction for the year under paragraph (e), (f) or (g), amounts expended by him in the year for travelling in the course of his employ- ment. ...