Search - considered

The portion of profit that is included in income for the fiscal period is based on the percentage of the job that is complete at the time, after deducting certain amounts not considered "receivable" at the fiscal period end. ...

The consideration given to acquire shares is considered for the acquisition and disposition of shares. ...

If that intent is not clear from the wording of the order or written agreement, I do not believe that the condition specified in the Act can be considered met ...

The only other option I found was that equipment reseller who was offering maybe 20,000 for the whole amount". [11]     The foregoing events must be considered in light of the fact that there appears to have been considerable friction between Derek G. and the Appellant which led to the latter's apparent dismissal from his employment as general manager. ...

Because this ferry service is considered an international service between Canada and the United States it maintains a zero rated status, where passenger revenue is zero percent taxable, as per the legislation. ...

In fact, there is nothing in the evidence provided by the Appellants to allow me to conclude that there were errors in the facts considered by the Minister in exercising his discretion. ...

This will be considered from the perspective of time spent, capital committed and potential profitability. [17]     As for time spent, Mr. ...

(hereinafter, the "company"); (b)         Daniel Cozak is the majority stockholder of the company; (c)         Daniel Cozak is the Appellant's spouse; (d)         for the taxation years 1998 and 1999, the Appellant claimed $3,621 and $6,893, respectively, as other employment expenses; (e)         the amounts stated in the preceding paragraph are only the expenses for the depreciation of a vehicle; (f)          for each of the taxation years in question, the Appellant produced a T777 form-Statement of Employment Expenses; (g)         for the taxation year 1998, the Appellant claimed to have driven her personal vehicle 25,000 km for business purposes out of a total of 28,000 km, for the period from August 28, 1998, to December 31, 1998; (h)         for the taxation year 1999, the Appellant claimed she drove 10,000 km for business purposes and 10,000 km total; (i)          in response to the request of the Minister's auditor, the Appellant produced a log in which she had detailed the 29,594 km she had driven for business travel out of a total of 35,405 km over the taxation year 1998; (j)          the vehicle she allegedly used was acquired in November 1998; (k)         the Appellant indicated that she leased the vehicle from August 28, 1998, until it was purchased in November 1998; (l)          for the taxation year 1999, the travel indicated in the log was 10,162 km for business purposes and 10,162 km total; (m)        during a telephone conversation with the Minister's auditor, the Appellant said that she left the residence directly to go meet her clients; (n)         later, during another telephone conversation with the Minister's auditor, the Appellant said that she travelled with a friend to get to the office and then she left the office with the vehicle to go see the clients; (o)         the Appellant refused to identify the "friend" with whom she travelled; (p)         based on the above, the Minister's auditor considered that the log produced by the Appellant was not valid, and as a result, refused her the amounts of $3,621 and $6,893 for the taxation years 1998 and 1999, claimed as other employment expenses; (q)         at the objection stage, the Appellant's agent informed the Minister's agent that all gas and vehicle maintenance fees were paid by the Appellant who was then reimbursed by the company; (r)         the Minister's agent asked the Appellant's agent to provide evidence of the travel and of the reimbursements by the company, in support of the trips; (s)         further to this analysis, the Minister's agent came to the same conclusions as the auditor, that is that the evidence provided did not support the travel indicated in the log submitted, and moreover, the amounts indicated were sometimes unreasonable. ...

  [17]     Beyond all the explanations, the Appellant did not consider himself an employee; he considered himself a shareholder, entrepreneur, officer, boss, owner. ...

Therefore, the Court should find that Gestion Libro and the contracts between the Appellant and Gestion Libro were deceptions and should be considered nonexistent. ...