Search - considered
Results 27841 - 27850 of 49137 for considered
FCTD
O'Brien v. The Queen, 85 DTC 5202, [1985] 1 CTC 285 (FCTD)
It was held that the joint venture was merely a vehicle of convenience used by two contractors jointly for co-ordinating and administering their contract which must at all times be considered as having been performed by them even though undertaken through the agency of the joint venture, which was merely an accounting device. ...
SCC
Guay v. Lafleur, 64 DTC 5218, [1964] CTC 350, [1965] SCR 12
Justice Brossard in a considered judgment granted the injunction asked for in the following terms: 4i ACCUEILLE la requête en injonction du demandeur; ORDONNE que les séances du défendeur agissant en sa qualité d’enquêteur nommé par le sous-ministre du Revenu national en date du 28 décembre 1960 et en vertu des dispositions de l’article 126(4) de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu soient suspendues jusqu’à ce que le demandeur ait obtenu du défendeur l’autorisation d’y être présent et d’y être représenté par ses procureurs; le tout sans frais mais avec recommandation que les frais du demandeur soient payés par le mis-en-cause. ’ ’ That judgment was affirmed by the Court of Queen’s Bench, Hyde and Montgomery, J J. dissenting. ...
FCA
Canada v. Couture, 2009 DTC 5675, 2008 FCA 412
In the first step, the Tax Court Judge held that Professor Cheung, as an acupuncturist, could be considered to be a medical practitioner “within the accepted meaning of that term outside the Income Tax Act ”. ...
FCTD
Pupatello v. MNR, 77 DTC 5350, [1977] CTC 499 (FCTD)
There are certainly some differences, however, between a notice of assessment and a notice of reassessment and this issue has been considered in a number of cases, a distinction having been made between a notice of reassessment which replaces the original notice of assessment rendering the latter void, and a notice of reassessment which merely adds additional sums to the original assessment. ...
TCC
Peragine v. The Queen, 2012 DTC 1287 [at at 3887], 2012 TCC 348
(1) In this Act, a reference to a trust or estate (in this subdivision referred to as a “trust”) shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be read to include a reference to the trustee, executor, administrator, liquidator of a succession, heir or other legal representative having ownership or control of the trust property, but, except for the purposes of this subsection, subsection (1.1), subparagraph (b)(v) of the definition “disposition” in subsection 248(1) and paragraph (k) of that definition, a trust is deemed not to include an arrangement under which the trust can reasonably be considered to act as agent for all the beneficiaries under the trust with respect to all dealings with all of the trust's property unless the trust is described in any of paragraphs (a) to (e.1) of the definition “trust” in subsection 108(1). ...
FCTD
Greenbranch Investments Ltd. v. The Queen, 80 DTC 6384, [1980] CTC 514 (FCTD)
No doubt the plaintiffs considered all these matters and the advantage that it might have in acquiring title by foreclosure. ...
TCC
Audet v. The Queen, 2012 DTC 1208 [at at 3556], 2012 TCC 162 (Informal Procedure)
[20] Also, current commercial reality is increasingly considered sufficient to demonstrate that the expectation of dividend income justifies a capital loss deduction under subparagraph 40(2)(g)(ii) (Byram, at paragraph 19). ...
FCTD
Marotta v. The Queen, 86 DTC 6192, [1986] 1 CTC 393 (FCTD)
As physician-in-chief, the plaintiff was considered the University's delegate for teaching functions at St. ...
TCC
Austin v. R., 99 DTC 710, [1999] 2 CTC 2270 (TCC)
The question will arise in other cases and one issue that will have to be considered is whether to be a member of the clergy the ceremony whereby the person is set apart spiritually, or invested with the trappings of spiritual superiority, must be called “ordination” by the particular denomination. ...
FCA
Ali v. Canada, 2008 DTC 6446, 2008 FCA 190
[20] Having reached the conclusion that the benefit sought by the appellants is not a benefit provided by the law and that the legislative choice not to provide such a benefit does not give rise to direct discrimination or discrimination by effect, I am of the view that the appellants’ subsection 15(1) argument need not be further considered. ...