Search - considered

  [35]            That may be so, but that takes nothing away from the fact that the Minister considered both methods to be “fair and reasonable” under subsection 141.01(5) of the Act. ...

  (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:   …   (c) where, in the year, the taxpayer   (i) is a member of the clergy or of a religious order or a regular minister of a religious denomination, and   (ii) is   (A) in charge of a diocese, parish or congregation,   (B) ministering to a diocese, parish or congregation, or   (C) engaged exclusively in full-time administrative service by appointment of a religious order or religious denomination,   the amount, not exceeding the taxpayer's remuneration for the year from the office or employment, equal to   (iii) the total of all amounts including amounts in respect of utilities, included in computing the taxpayer's income for the year under section 6 in respect of the residence or other living accommodation occupied by the taxpayer in the course of, or because of, the taxpayer's office or employment as such a member or minister so in charge of or ministering to a diocese, parish or congregation, or so engaged in such administrative service, or   (iv) rent and utilities paid by the taxpayer for the taxpayer's principal place of residence (or other principal living accommodation), ordinarily occupied during the year by the taxpayer, or the fair rental value of such a residence (or other living accommodation), including utilities, owned by the taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse or common-law partner, not exceeding the lesser of   (A) the greater of   (I) $1,000 multiplied by the number of months (to a maximum of ten) in the year, during which the taxpayer is a person described in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), and   (II) one-third of the taxpayer's remuneration for the year from the office or employment, and   (B) the amount, if any, by which   (I) the rent paid or the fair rental value of the residence or living accommodation, including utilities   exceeds   (II) the total of all amounts each of which is an amount deducted, in connection with the same accommodation or residence, in computing an individual's income for the year from an office or employment or from a business (other than an amount deducted under this paragraph by the taxpayer), to the extent that the amount can reasonably be considered to relate to the period, or a portion of the period, in respect of which an amount is claimed by the taxpayer under this paragraph;   [5]               It is the position of the Appellant that, in this case, she has the right to choose whether to claim a deduction under subparagraph (iii) or subparagraph (iv) of paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Act ...

He concluded that the failure by PCS to specify certain categories of the computation of resource profits, which meant that the total amount in controversy was somewhat greater than disclosed in the notice of objection, did not bar PCS from having those additional items considered as part of its determination of the question of whether the resource profits had been correctly computed. ...

Monnin, JA then considered whether clause (f) of the will, quoted Supra, made any difference and came to the conclusion that it did not. ...

Instead, they will be compared to the actions of the reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances. [29]         Can the Appellant’s actions in these circumstances be considered to be those that a reasonably prudent person would engage in if placed in this situation? ...

The Queen, 2005 FCA 252, 2005 DTC 5397:     [28]  A fraudulent scheme from beginning to end or a sting operation, if that be the case, cannot give rise to a source of income from the victim’s point of view and hence cannot be considered as a business under any definition. […]   [32]          Although this comment refers to a victim of fraud, c ounsel suggests that the comment applies to the appellant since she was an unknowing participant in a fraud ...

Analysis The matter of the deductibility of the subject debts could first be considered in light of the provisions of paragraph 20(1)(p) of the Act as they read at the material times: 20 (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), (b) and (h), in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from a business or property, 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: (p) the aggregate of debts owing to the taxpayer (i) that are established by him to have become bad debts in that year, and (ii) that have (except in the case of debts arising from loans made in the ordinary course of business by a taxpayer part of whose ordinary business was the lending of money) been included in computing his income for the year or a previous year. ...

Counsel pointed to the provision in Section 1100(1) (c) (i) for calculating capital cost allowance on the basis of ‘‘the life of the property remaining at the time the cost was incurred’’ and submitted first that this showed that the expenses of perfecting an invention should not be considered to be part of the capital cost of a patent therefor since there would be no patent in existence at the time when the; expense was incurred and; consequently, no part of such expense could be taken into account in calculating capital cost allowance in respect of a patent obtained after the commencement of the 1949 taxation year, and secondly that since the same regulation applies in respect of patents obtained both before and after that time, it would be illogical to treat such expenses as forming part of the capital cost of a patent acquired prior to that time when they could not be taken into account in computing capital cost allowance in respect of a patent obtained after that time. ...

I do not think that this contention is tenable because the series of transactions was considered as a “package deal”. ...

The appellant attacks the assessment in a number of ways which I will list because they must be considered separately. ...