Search - considered

The arguments raised therein had been considered and rejected numerous times by this Court for the simple reason that they are nonsensical gibberish and completely without merit. [15] The Appellant did not rely on those arguments to file his return, but rather raised them as a defence when he was reassessed to deny the charitable donations he had claimed. [16] It would have been a waste of judicial resources and an abuse of this Court’s process to allow the appeal to continue based on the issues raised in the notice of appeal and the answer. [17] Accordingly, by order dated February 10, 2023, I struck the notice of appeal and answer in their entirety and gave the Appellant until April 14, 2023 to file a written argument which explained why I should grant him leave to amend the notice of appeal. ...

As such, the Appellant does not qualify for the rebate. [31] Of course, the above analysis does not consider the Appellant’s argument concerning the role that the trust agreement between itself and Satish, Adarsh and Vidushi should play as part of the analysis. [32] The Federal Court of Appeal, in the Cheema [1] case has considered an argument very similar to the one put forth by the Appellant dealing with the use of trusts. ...

(a) 2015 [13] The Minister issued a Notice of Assessment dated February 12, 2016, for the Applicant’s failure to remit CPP contributions and EI premiums for 2015. [14] A letter from the CPP/EI Appeals Division dated July 12, 2022, indicates that: The CRA considered the online objection filed by Mr. ...

Conclusion [55] The documents requested are not accessible under Rule 317 as they are beyond the scope of what was considered by the decision-maker and are not relevant to the issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. ...

[16] In this appeal, the parties agree that if there is an income source, it is a business (not property). [18] Where the activity: (a) appears to be clearly commercial, (b) contains no personal or hobby element, and (c) the evidence is consistent with the view that the activity is conducted for profit, then a source of income exists for the purposes of the Act. [17] However, where the activity could be considered a personal pursuit, then one must ask if the activity is being carried on in a sufficiently commercial manner so as to be a source of income. [18] [19] When determining whether a taxpayer is carrying on the activity in a sufficiently commercial manner, the non-exhaustive list of objective factors include: (1) profit and loss experience in past years, (2) the taxpayer’s training, (3) the taxpayer’s intended course of action, and (4) the capability of the activity to show a profit. [19] The factors will vary depending on the nature and extent of the activity. [20] This determination is not an evaluation of the taxpayer’s business acumen but, rather, the commercial nature of the activity in question. [21] [20] The question of whether a business exists is separate from the deductibility of expenses. [22] In order to be deductible against business income, the expense must be incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business. [23] It will not be deductible against business income if it is a personal or living expense [24] or if it is unreasonable in the circumstances. [25] VI. ...

Quigley’s objection been better articulated during the discovery, counsel for the Respondent could easily have asked questions about what he considered to be findings of facts from Mariano without regard to whether they were actually findings of fact or not. ...

Various facts must be considered to make that determination: TCC Decisions at paras. 18 to 23. [8] The Tax Court then referred to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada, according to which a question of mixed fact and law is one that asks whether a given set of facts satisfy a legal test or one that requires applying a legal test to a set of facts: TCC Decisions at paras. 24-25 citing Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. ...

The Applicant knew as of November 17, 2022, during a phone call with a CRA staff, that the CRA considered her net self‑employment income of $3,939 insufficient to meet the Income Requirement. ...

As stated above, that percentage appears in the CRA Bulletin B-092 as the minimum percentage for a property to be considered as having been “substantially renovated”. [30] There is some confusion inherent in measuring what has or has not been renovated. ...

I have reproduced the analysis below: [22] I have considered the percentage of costs awarded by the Court, including the following: Enhanced Costs Award Case 20% General Electric Capital Canada Inc. v The Queen, 2010 TCC 490 20% (and 60%) Grenon v The Queen, 2021 TCC 89 30% Klemen v R, 2014 TCC 369 35% Cameco Corporation v The Queen, 2019 TCC 92 35% Damis Properties Inc. v The Queen, 2021 TCC 44 36% CIT Group Securities (Canada) Inc. v The Queen, 2017 TCC 86 39% Chad v The King, 2023 TCC 76 40% Invesco Canada Ltd. v R, 2015 TCC 92 45% Paletta Estate v The Queen, 2021 TCC 41 50% Univar Holdco Canada ULC v The Queen, 2020 TCC 15 IV. ...