Search - considered

the evidence failed to account for the date of first occupancy of the Units, which if considered would have over time reduced the hypothetical glut and established that the market could have absorbed all the Units hypothetically sold during 1994, the first 6 months of 1995, and all of 1996 and all of 1997. [26]            These are factual findings and I am unable to see that there is any palpable and overriding error. [27]            However, more importantly, Lansink's opinion was apparently based upon his conclusion that all the Units would hypothetically be placed on the market at the same time. ...

No evidence was adduced by the appellant that the information regarding the appellant’s 2002 tax returns was not properly summarized in that report considered by Mrs. ...

Whether the Chief Justice erred in applying the anti-avoidance provision contained in subsection 103(1) of the Act     [11]            Subsection 103(1) of the Act reads:   103. (1) Where the members of a partnership have agreed to share, in a specified proportion, any income or loss of the partnership from any source or from sources in a particular place, as the case may be, or any other amount in respect of any activity of the partnership that is relevant to the computation of the income or taxable income of any of the members thereof, and the principal reason for the agreement may reasonably be considered to be the reduction or postponement of the tax that might otherwise have been or become payable under this Act, the share of each member of the partnership in the income or loss, as the case may be, or in that other amount, is the amount that is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances including the proportions in which the members have agreed to share profits and losses of the partnership from other sources or from sources in other places.   103. (1) Lorsque les associés d'une société de personnes sont convenus de partager en proportions déterminées tout revenu ou perte de la société de personnes provenant d'une source donnée ou de sources situées dans un endroit déterminé ou tout autre montant qui se rapporte à une activité quelconque de la société de personnes et qui doit entrer en ligne de compte dans le calcul du revenu ou du revenu imposable de tout associé de cette société de personnes et lorsqu'il est raisonnable de considérer que cette convention a pour objet principal de réduire les impôts ou de différer le paiement des impôts qui auraient pu être ou devenir payables par ailleurs en vertu de la présente loi, la part du revenu ou de la perte, selon le cas, ou de l'autre montant, revenant à chaque associé de la société de personnes est le montant qui est raisonnable, compte tenu des circonstances, y compris les proportions dans lesquelles les associés sont convenus de partager les profits et les pertes de la société de personnes provenant d'autres sources ou de sources situées à d'autres endroits.                                                                                                                                     ...

(e) the application for a refund is not based solely upon a successful appeal to the Courts by a taxpayer. e) que la demande de remboursement ne se fonde pas uniquement sur un appel devant les tribunaux d'un autre contribuable ayant eu gain de cause. [15]            The Judge considered the exception in paragraph 4(e) of Information Circular 75-7R3 to be a sound policy. ...

It has to be considered, albeit, in my view, in a more understanding way. [27]            In the circumstances, this Court is called upon to exercise itself the discretion the Tax Court Judge has exercised in a non-judicial manner. ...

First, the Minister seeks judicial review of the Tax Court's determination that on the facts of this case, Quantum's payment of Wallace was improperly considered in light of the legal test imposed by the Regulations, i.e., whether Wallace's remuneration was paid to him by the placement agency. ...

But that would also defeat the purpose of the section by precluding its application to any situation where a third party was actually providing and administering the wages or salary. [9]                 I am reinforced in this opinion by several decisions of the Tax Court of Canada which are consistent with the conclusion that the "other person" can be considered to have "paid" someone else's employee without having a legal obligation to that employee to do so (See Kern Hill Co-op Ltd. v. ...

However, the appellants themselves do not point to any principle or authority that would preclude a party’s amendment to its statement of claim from being considered as a new fact under subsection 50(3) of the Federal Courts Act. [37]            There is no express requirement for the existence of new facts in subsection 50(3). ...

The relevant parts of this definition of tax shelter are as follows: “tax shelter” means « abri fiscal » … […] (b) […] a property (including any right to income) […] in respect of which it can reasonably be considered, having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the […] the property, that, if a person were to […] acquire an interest in the property, at the end of a particular taxation year that ends within four years after the day on which the […] interest is acquired, b) […] bien (y compris le droit à un revenue), […] pour lequel il est raisonnable de considérer, compte tenu de déclarations ou d’annonces faites ou envisagées relativement […] au bien, que, si une personne devait conclure […] acquérir une part dans le bien, le montant visé au sous-alinéa serait, à la fin d’une année d’imposition qui se termine dans les quatre ans suivant le jour […] la part, acquise égal ou supérieur au montant visé au sous-alinéa (ii)  (i) the total of all amounts each of which is (i) le total des montants représentant chacun  (A) an amount, or a loss in the case of a partnership interest, represented to be deductible in computing the person's income for the particular year …, or (A) un montant ou, dans le cas d’une participation dans une société de personnes, une perte qui est annoncé comme étant déductible dans le calcul du revenue de la personne pour l’année […] ou, … […] would equal or exceed (ii) the amount, if any, by which (ii) l’excédent éventuel du montant visé à la division (A) sur le total visé à la division (B)  (A) the cost to the person of […] the interest in the property at the end of the particular year, determined without reference to section 143.2, would exceed (A) le coût, pour la personne, […] de la part dans le bien à la fin de l’année, déterminé compte non tenu de l’article 143.2, (B) the total of all amounts each of which is the amount of any prescribed benefit that is expected to be received or enjoyed, directly or indirectly, in respect of the […] interest in the property, by the person or another person with whom the person does not deal at arm's length. ...

He did not change his driver’s licence because he was too busy. [50]         He did not have to notify any credit card companies of a change of address because he did not have any credit cards; his credit was bad. [51]         Yusuf was not happy when he had to move out but concluded he had to move out  and let the Appellant and her family come back to 215 Shirrick  for the safety of his niece and nephew given “. . . the way they explained it to me what was going on in that neighbourhood”. [8] [52]         Moving out also led to his breaking up with his girlfriend and he moved back to where he was living before, his parents’ house. [53]         I do not accept substantial portions of the evidence of the Appellant and her witnesses and, as a consequence, I do not accept that the Appellant and her family moved into 161 Shirrick; I also do not accept that the Appellant bought 161 Shirrick with the intention of using it as the family’s principal place of residence. [54]         The considerations set out below, when considered collectively, make the Appellant’s evidence quite unlikely. [55]         It seems unlikely that the Appellant would have been unaware of a noise issue before closing if she intended to move to the house ...