Search - considered

By agreement of the parties and with the consent of the Court, the computation of the appellant’s net worth assessments for 1976 to 1978 inclusive, for practical purposes, will be considered here on the assumption that the appellant is the sole proprietor of Riviera Pizza, the understanding being that the decision rendered and the quantum determined in this appeal will apply “mutatis mutandis” to the assessments to be made with respect to the half-interest of the appellant’s wife in Riviera Pizza. ...

Limited as well considered to be the appellant’s interest in the goodwill and business in Doulton products in Canada. ...

Jackett, P considered various possible meanings of control, including de facto control by one or more shareholders whether or not they hold a majority of shares”, and concluded at 303 that “controlled” in section 39 contemplated “the right of control that rests in ownership of such a number of shares as carries with it the right to a majority of the votes in the election of the Board of Directors”. ...

After the appellant’s return for the 1979 taxation year had been accepted as submitted and the appellant had been assessed accordingly, the Department of Revenue notified him, in a registered letter dated January 21, 1981, that only part of the legal expenses deducted, namely $2,363.95, was accepted as an expense, the balance of $12,786.00 being considered a personal expense that could not be deducted in computing his income. 3.04 The amount at issue in the present case is only $12,786. ...

The learned justice then proceeded to demonstrate that the only view which could fit the circumstances of Fraser (supra) (and then which in turn might have any application to Freud (supra)) was that when the business method chosen by which to acquire the land was the holding in a company interposed for that purpose, where the alternative of share capital of holding the land directly was available to the taxpayer, such shareholdings need not be considered as a capital investment but rather could be regarded as a trading outlay. ...

In addition counsel noted that a clear distinction existed between this case and Totem (supra) since the question of using the management bonus as a tax reduction mechanism had not been considered at all. ...

From the evidence, I can find nothing in the foregoing which would allow me to conclude that the appellant must be considered a mere “employee”, whereas a senior partner must be treated as a person in business. ...

The Board is persuaded that the testimony and evidence support the contention of counsel for the appellant that the loss of the amount paid to Columbia by the appellant ($25,000) was on income account, and should be considered a business loss. ...

The respondent submitted the following cases, all of which I have considered: Philias C Castonguay v MNR, [1970] Tax ABC 35; 70 DTC 1056; C A Burns Limited v MNR, [1981] CTC 2001; 81 DTC 14; Hubert Plante and Reynald Plante v MNR, [1981] CTC 2052; 81 DTC 74; Earle C Argue v MNR, [1981] CTC 2221; 81 DTC 204; Les Immeubles Dramis Inc v MNR, [1981] CTC 2568; 81 DTC 512; Raymond G Schaeffer v MNR, [1981] CTC 2891; 81 DTC 807; James R Leslie v MNR, [1982] CTC 2233; 82 DTC 1216. ...

There were two points at issue in the appeal — one regarding the area of land which should be properly considered as the appellant’s “principal residence” since a portion of the total acreage upon which his house was built was sold by the appellant in the year 1978. ...