Search - considered

If a road of the substance and quality of the New Road was built for the purpose of accessing the site and would later be used to move coal, there would be a good argument that the building of the road was an efficient way of handling both the problem of access to the mine and later removal of the coal and the expenses might well be considered to be CEE. ...

This section provides that: 118.4(1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or may reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions) or, (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ...

However, there are affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioners that should be considered. ...

If a justification for the delay is not established, then the question of a remedy must be considered. ...

The Respondents’s Reply to Notice of Appeal stated:- during the 1989 taxation year, the Appellant was an employee of Canadian National Railway Company (the “Employer”) and the United Transportation Union (the “UTU”); — during the 1989 taxation year, the Employer closed its Fort Erie, Ontario terminal where the Appellant worked; — the Appellant received income from employment of $25,166.54 from the Employer and $69,309.97 from the UTU during the 1989 taxation year;- the Appellant reported income from employment of $94,476.51 on his 1989 income tax return, being the total of the two amounts referred to in subparagraph 9(d) above; — the amount of $25,166.54 referred to in subparagraph 9(d) above included a relocation allowance in the amount of $25,000.00 received by the Appellant from the Employer during the 1989 taxation year with respect to the closure by the Employer of the Fort Erie terminal;- the said relocation allowance in the amount of $25,000.00 was determined by negotiations between the Employer and the UTU; — the said relocation allowance was an allowance for personal or living expenses of the Appellant; — in computing his taxable income, the Appellant deducted the said relocation allowance in the amount of $25,000.00 received by him from the Employer during the 1989 taxation year, and as a result, considered the said amount to be a non taxable allowance; — the relocation allowance in the amount of $25,000.00 received by the Appellant from the Employer during the 1989 taxation year, was a predetermined amount which had not been calculated with respect to any actual costs or expenses which the Appellant might incur; — the relocation allowance in the amount of $25,000.00 received by the Appellant from the Employer during the 1989 taxation year, was intended for the particular purpose of covering the costs of future losses from the relocation of the Appellant’s place of work as a result of the closure by the Employer of the Fort Erie terminal; — the relocation allowance in the amount of $25,000.00 received by the Appellant from the Employer during the 1989 taxation year, was intended for the particular purpose of covering the costs of future losses from the relocation of the Appellant’s place of work as a result of the closure by the Employer of the Fort Erie terminal; — the Appellant received the relocation allowance in the amount of $25,000.00 from the Employer and was not required to account for the manner in which the allowance was spent; — the Appellant’s taxable income for the 1989 taxation year was understated by the amount of $25,000.00 which represents the amount paid by the Employer to the Appellant during the 1989 taxation year for a relocation allowance as a result of the closure by the Employer of the Fort Erie terminal; and — the said relocation allowance of $25,000.00 is income from an office or employment. ...

I find it hard to see how a debt may be considered bad when that debt is guaranteed by a mortgage. ...

Since its amendment in 1994, applicable to the 1991 and subsequent taxation years, subsection 118.4(1) has read as follows: 118.4(1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or may reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ...

The details of these additional items now considered to be deductible by the Respondent, did not appear to follow any evidentiary or case law pattern of which I am aware, and must be regarded as simply an extension of amounts already accorded to the Appellant, as noted above- for whatever reason. ...

While the purpose of the legislation is a factor to be considered, it is only one of several which need to be taken into account. ...

Dudar that you refer to was sent prior to any reassessment, thus it cannot be considered as a Notice of Objection. ...