Search - considered

Canada, 2021 FCA 88, 2021 D.T.C. 5050 [Kam-Press], this Court considered a similar argument to the argument put forward by the appellant in the case at bar. ...

His counsel objected and, in the course of addressing that objection, repeated an earlier statement before the Tax Court that anything in the Fresh Notice of Appeal should be considered correct. ...

The letter relied upon by the Appellant was mailed to the T1 Processing Review Centre in Shawinigan, Quebec. [31] In brief reasons, by way of a judgment delivered from the bench in McClelland, the FCA considered a situation in which the taxpayer had sent a letter to a CRA Collection Enforcement Officer, as opposed to the Chief of Appeals in a district office or a taxation center, and stated: The Income Tax Act required that a Notice of Objection must be sent to the Chief of Appeals. ...

Once again, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, the RAD considered this argument and found the credibility concerns to be determinative of a s 97 claim. [23] The Respondent cites Sanabria v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1076 at para 14, where Justice McHaffie states: “the case law reflects the principle that, when weighing the evidence before them, H&C officers may take into account adverse credibility findings made by the RPD and the RAD regarding fear of removal to the country of origin.” [24] I find Justice McHaffie’s comment aptly applies to the case at hand. ...

That question was not whether such an application by the Minister should only be considered after having been served on the taxpayer so as to give the taxpayer an opportunity to make representations. ...

Further, he questioned whether or not the salary that he drew out of the business could be considered income. ...

He received a Bachelor of Science degree from Carleton University where he minored in computer science; he is considered to be a qualified technical professional. ...

Respondent’s counsel submitted that the assumptions in the Reply to the No- tice of Appeal had not been negated or altered by the Appellant and that, accordingly, the assumptions must be regarded as fact with the result that the loan amount must be considered to have been forgiven. ...

Other deductions (L396/R3740/T2/BT2) test_linespace (234>217.60) 0.837 1052_3615_3721 There may be deducted in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year such of the following amounts as are applicable: (b) Alimony payments--- an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient, children of the recipient or both the recipient and the children, if the taxpayer, because of the breakdown of the taxpayer’s marriage, was living separate and apart from the spouse or former spouse to whom the taxpayer was required to make the payment at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year and the amount was paid under a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or under a written agreement; 60.1(3) Prior payments--- For the purposes of this section and section 60, where a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or a written agreement made at any time in a taxation year provides that an amount paid before that time and in the year or the preceding taxation year is to be considered to have been paid and received thereunder, the amount shall be deemed to have been paid thereunder. ...

The definition of resident under this section has not been judicially considered. ...