Search - considered

In reading “the provisions of an Act as a harmonious whole”, it is necessary to consider how interest will be calculated on the Overpayment for 1995 to determine whether Bakorp could be getting an unintended benefit if its interpretation of subsection 187(2) of the Act is adopted in relation to 1993. [21]            This subsection is as follows: 164 (3) If, under this section, an amount in respect of a taxation year (other than an amount, or a portion of the amount, that can reasonably be considered to arise from the operation of section 122.5 or 122.61) is refunded or repaid to a taxpayer or applied to another liability of the taxpayer, the Minister shall pay or apply interest on it at the prescribed rate for the period that begins on the day that is the latest of the days referred to in the following paragraphs and that ends on the day on which the amount is refunded, repaid or applied: 164 (3) Si, en vertu du présent article, une somme à l’égard d’une année d’imposition est remboursée à un contribuable ou imputée sur tout autre montant dont il est redevable, à l’exception de tout ou partie de la somme qu’il est raisonnable de considérer comme découlant de l’application des articles 122.5 ou 122.61, le ministre paie au contribuable les intérêts afférents à cette somme au taux prescrit ou les impute sur cet autre montant, pour la période commençant au dernier en date des jours visés aux alinéas ci-après et se terminant le jour où la somme est remboursée ou imputée: (a) if the taxpayer is an individual, the day that is 30 days after the individual’s balance-due day for the year; a) si le contribuable est un particulier, le trentième jour suivant la date d’exigibilité du solde qui lui est applicable pour l’année; (b) if the taxpayer is a corporation, the day that is 120 days after the end of the year; b) si le contribuable est une société, le cent vingtième jour suivant la fin de l’année; (c) if the taxpayer is c) si le contribuable est: (i) a corporation, the day that is 30 days after the day on which its return of income for the year was filed under section 150, unless the return was filed on or before the corporation’s filing-due date for the year, and (i) une société, le trentième jour suivant celui où sa déclaration de revenu pour l’année a été produite en conformité avec l’article 150, sauf si la déclaration a été produite au plus tard à la date d’échéance de production qui lui est applicable pour l’année, (ii) an individual, the day that is 30 days after the day on which the individual’s return of income for the year was filed under section 150; (ii) un particulier, le trentième jour suivant celui où sa déclaration de revenu pour l’année a été produite en conformité avec l’article 150; (d) in the case of a refund of an overpayment, the day on which the overpayment arose; and d) dans le cas du remboursement d’un paiement en trop d’impôt, le jour où il y a eu paiement en trop; (e) in the case of a repayment of an amount in controversy, the day on which an overpayment equal to the amount of the repayment would have arisen if the total of all amounts payable on account of the taxpayer’s liability under this Part for the year were the amount by which e) dans le cas du remboursement d’une somme en litige, le jour où il y aurait eu un paiement en trop égal à la somme remboursée si le total des sommes payables sur ce dont le contribuable est redevable en vertu de la présente partie pour l’année était égal à l’excédent du total visé au sous-alinéa (i) sur la somme visée au sous-alinéa (ii): (i) the lesser of the total of all amounts paid on account of the taxpayer’s liability under this Part for the year and the total of all amounts assessed by the Minister as payable under this Part by the taxpayer for the year exceeds (i) le total des sommes versées sur ce dont il est redevable en vertu de la présente partie pour l’année ou, s’il est moins élevé, le total des sommes qui, selon la cotisation établie par le ministre, sont à payer en vertu de la présente partie par le contribuable pour l’année, (ii) the amount repaid. ...

This subsection also provides that all notices or documents mailed, served or sent to a partnership at the last known address or place of business of the partnership or any member thereof (or, in the case of a limited partnership, of any member thereof whose liability is not limited) shall be considered to have been provided to each member of the partnership. ...

The Applicant also appears to have either disregarded or failed to heed the warning in paragraph 7.2 of the Policy, which states: If prescribed forms are filed on or before the SR&ED reporting deadline (see section 6.0), but they do not contain all the prescribed information in respect of the expenditures (see section 4.1) being claimed or the prescribed information in respect of the ITC amount earned on the expenditures (see section 4.2); the claimant will not be considered to have met the filing requirements for these expenditures or ITC. ...

Whether an activity may be considered a commercial activity is a question of fact. ...

Generally, the Minister will not be considered to have met this standard of proof if a taxpayer’s conduct is consistent with two viable and reasonable hypotheses, one justifying the penalty and one not: see the Federal Court of Appeal in Panini v. ...

For the general principle that farming activities may be contracted out by the taxpayer and the latter will still be considered as engaging in a farming operation, see the decision of Cattanach J. in The Queen v. ...

At the time OLDCO was in financial trouble and owed the Appellant about $1,7 million. [22] On December 10, 1977, the Appellant increased its guarantee to the Bank to $600,000 and acknowledged that its security against NEWCO was second to the Bank's interest. [23] In 1977 and again in 1988, the Appellant waived interest owing to it by NEWCO, as NEWCO was experiencing financial difficulties. [24] In 1979, the Appellant cut off credit to NEWCO. [25] On March 27, 1980, the Board of Directors of the Appellant considered a proposal from P.M. ...

He further acknowledged therein that this system allowed the employee to have a fixed salary for a certain period, to get a better unemployment insurance benefit rate and to be able to work without being penalized, and that for the company the agreement meant that it could have manpower available at all times. [109] Michel D'Amours admitted at the hearing that he had had to pay a penalty as a result of that inquiry. [110] It is strange, if the appellant was not doing the runs, that it was still he who was signing the invoices. [111] Michel D'Amours may not have recalled the quarrel resulting in the appellant's layoff in May 1995, but the appellant acknowledged that there was indeed a quarrel. [112] If all the hours allegedly worked during the summer months had actually been worked the salary might have been reasonable, but that was not the case. [113] The above-cited text on the Civil Code reform is very interesting, but it makes it quite clear that a contract of employment is an onerous contract, which characteristic, in this case, was absent in the winter so long as there were accumulated hours. [114] The appellant's pay was clearly inflated so as to give him better unemployment insurance benefits. [115] It is true that the Civil Code of Quebec comprises a body of rules which, in all matters within the letter, spirit or object of its provisions, lays down the jus commune, expressly or by implication, and that in these matters the Code is the foundation of all other laws, although other laws may complement the Code or make exceptions to it. [116] It is also true that the Code is supplemental and s. 3(1)(a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act establishes that, to be insurable, employment must be held under a genuine contract of service. [117] Such was not the case here. [118] While it is true that the appellant lived in St-Eugène, that could not explain the arrangement discussed above. [119] Although the Unemployment Insurance Act is social legislation, its purpose is to insure real employment, which the employment here was not. [120] There may have been a synallagmatic contract of employment, but it was not insurable. [121] The appellant had the burden of proof and it was up to him to establish, if he considered it to be in his interest, the value of the car he was given by payer. [122] The appeal must therefore be dismissed and the decision appealed from affirmed. ...

I understand that he often referred to legal chicanery that he may have considered bizarre and dilatory; however, his opinion that his administration was completed after February since the only remaining assets were deposit certificates and two immovables is just as bizarre and unfounded. [36] Page 9 of the unaudited financial statements and review engagement reports dated October 7, 1991, indicates that fees of $21,935 were paid to the accountant. ...

During this period he only considered the timber which was of a butt diameter of 12 inches or more. ...