Search - considered

Unlike the case of Ian E Brown v The Queen, 2014 FCA 301, the material facts necessary to meet the Minister’s burden were admitted in the Amended Notice of Appeal. [29]         I have carefully considered the Amended Notice of Appeal, the oral and written submissions made by the Appellant and counsel for the Respondent and I have concluded that the Amended Notice of Appeal should be struck. ...

In making my decision, I have considered section 147 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), in particular paragraphs 147(3)(a) and (b). ...

However, paragraph 5(3)(b) of the EIA states that this employee who is not dealing with the employer at arm’s length can be considered to have insurable employment if the Minister is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the parties would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment. ...

Notwithstanding subsections (4), (4.1) and (5), if the result of an assessment or a decision on an appeal is to change a particular balance of a taxpayer for a particular taxation year, the Minister may, or if the taxpayer so requests in writing, shall, before the later of the expiration of the normal reassessment period in respect of a subsequent taxation year and the end of the day that is one year after the day on which all rights of objection and appeal expire or are determined in respect of the particular year, reassess the tax, interest or penalties payable by the taxpayer, redetermine an amount deemed to have been paid or to have been an overpayment by the taxpayer or modify the amount of a refund or other amount payable to the taxpayer, under this Part in respect of the subsequent taxation year, but only to the extent that the reassessment, redetermination or modification can reasonably be considered to relate to the change in the particular balance of the taxpayer for the particular year. ...

It must involve a high degree of negligence tantamount to intentional acting, an indifference as to whether the law is complied with or not. [15]         Some of the factors to be considered when deciding whether there was gross negligence are the magnitude of the omission in relation to the income declared; the opportunity the taxpayer had to detect the error; and the taxpayer’s education. ...

Beaudoin, I do not find that the work performed as part of the ‟Turbine energy windmill” project can be qualified as SR&ED activities. [25]         It is important to reiterate here that the Appellant’s research project has been examined by three CRA scientists, one of whom is considered an expert, and that Mr.  ...

Her Majesty the Queen, 2010 TCC 634, Justice Boyle considered both theories and chose to adopt the opinions of Houlden and Morawetz and of Deslauriers, relying on the decision rendered in Anderson v. ...

The relevant requirements are that he: (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is a parent of the qualified dependant who (i) is the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant and who is not a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant,… […] and for the purposes of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing. [20]         To be entitled to receive the GSTC, the Appellant’s daughter must be his “qualified dependant” under section 122.5. ...

In respect to all other expense categories, Laurel Brown, Canada Revenue Agency Auditor, reviewed the amounts that the Minister allowed and those expenses that were disallowed due to a lack of documentation or those expenses that were considered to be incurred for personal and not business purposes. [4]              Under the “other costs” category, the primary item disallowed was an amount of $10,500, which the Appellant claimed that he paid to his son as wages. ...

., which is currently on appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal). [28]         As stated above, when there is an issue of gross negligence, the taxpayer’s conduct should be considered, especially if it must be determined whether the taxpayer was wilfully blind. ...