Search - considered

Consequently, it cannot have conferred a benefit on him because he is the one who confers legitimacy on Gexco as a general contractor, in the construction market. [32]   The appellant also argues that the use of Gexco’s workers in the construction of his residence is not relevant in determining whether he received a benefit. [33]   It should first be noted that the appellant’s experience and skills, which are not in dispute, must be distinguished from what constitutes a benefit within the meaning of the Act. [34]   The appellant admits that the residence was built for personal purposes, but that Gexco was involved for purely practical reasons. [35]   However, as it was expressly shown in Gexco’s books, the accounting treatment applied to the construction of his residence was considered [TRANSLATION] “income from contracts” and no management fees were calculated and no profit was recorded. [36]   In addition, it was shown that Gexco’s profit margin in relation to all of its other construction projects was at least 8.09%. [37]   Shareholder benefits were at issue in Park Haven Designs Inc. v. ...

None of the travel arrangements for which invoices were attached to the Affidavit of Olinda Samuel, could be considered lavish expenses. (2) Costs Relating to Transcripts and Printing [31]   Finally, the disbursement costs, claimed for transcripts covering the several hearing dates and the printing and reproduction of various documents relating to the proceedings, are reasonable and were supported by invoices attached to the Affidavit of Olinda Samuel. ...

ANALYSIS [23]   The relevant portions of the provisions of the Act applicable in this appeal are as follows: 55 (2)  Where a corporation resident in Canada has received a taxable dividend in respect of which it is entitled to a deduction under subsection 112(1) or 112(2) or 138(6) as part of a transaction or event or a series of transactions or events, one of the purposes of which (or, in the case of a dividend under subsection 84(3), one of the results of which) was to effect a significant reduction in the portion of the capital gain that, but for the dividend, would have been realized on a disposition at fair market value of any share of capital stock immediately before the dividend and that could reasonably be considered to be attributable to anything other than income earned or realized by any corporation after 1971 and before the safe-income determination time for the transaction, event or series, notwithstanding any other section of this Act, the amount of the dividend (other than the portion of it, if any, subject to tax under Part IV that is not refunded as a consequence of the payment of a dividend to a corporation where the payment is part of the series) (a)  shall be deemed not to be a dividend received by the corporation; (b)  where a corporation has disposed of the share, shall be deemed to be proceeds of disposition of the share except to the extent that it is otherwise included in computing such proceeds; and (c)  where a corporation has not disposed of the share, shall be deemed to be a gain of the corporation for the year in which the dividend was received from the disposition of a capital property. 55(5)  For the purposes of this section, (c)  the income earned or realized by a corporation for a period throughout which it was a private corporation is deemed to be its income for the period otherwise determined on the assumption that no amounts were deductible by the corporation under section 37.1 of this Act, as that section applies for taxation years that ended before 1995, or paragraph 20(1)(gg) of the  Income Tax Act, chapter 148 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952; [24]   Subsection 55(2) of the Act does not have as a purpose to tax intercorporate dividends. ...

Such exercises of discretion are normally entitled to deference and the Court’s power to stay cannot be exercised in a manner that too readily countermands what the Tribunal has considered appropriate on the facts. [17]   This being said, a stay is possible provided that a somewhat demanding test is satisfied. [18]   There is nothing in the material before the Court to suggest that Public Works asked the Tribunal to delay the effective date of its decision. ...

He also argued that the expenses for work done to the units while they were vacant were deductible because the units   were still considered property for the purpose of earning income during those periods. ...

Paragraph 147(3)(d) contemplates that the circumstances, respecting a written offer of settlement, will be considered in an award of costs particularly when considering enhanced costs pursuant to a lump sum award. e)   Value of Work [24]   There were five witnesses in total with an expert qualified for each party. ...

He also considered the intention of Parliament noting that: [15]   (…) The issue in this appeal is whether the consecutive courses, with a duration of more than 13 consecutive weeks, is sufficient to allow the amount paid for these courses to be included as tuition for the purposes of paragraph 118.5(1)(b) of the Act when the courses, on an individual basis, were less than 13 consecutive weeks in duration. (…) [21]   For the purposes of the tuition credit the fees are determined "in respect of the year". ...

Protection against self-incrimination is considered a principle of fundamental justice, which brings it under section 7 if someone’s liberty is in jeopardy (R v S (RJ), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451). ...

As part of this analysis the Tax Court Judge addressed the issue of whether GAAR should be anticipated and considered by taxpayers. ...

An educated taxpayer particularly, cannot fob off this responsibility so as to not even be aware of what is being claimed on his/her behalf; while giving no credence to ample signs of CRA non-acceptance of previous filings. [30]   In concluding on the basis of the foregoing that the gross negligence penalties here at issue are well founded, I have as well considered the several authorities cited by the appellant, which, I note, include Wynter, and as well Findlay v. ...