Search - considered

He further indicated (at para. 76) that s. 95(2)(b)(i) “is unclear whether only the R&D services paid for by the taxpayer are to be considered or whether all services provided between the foreign affiliate and the taxpayer should be considered.” However, he considered, given that there was no base erosion going on where the cross-border services were fully reciprocal (as here), that s. 95(2)(b)(i) should be interpreted as applying “solely to situations where a net positive amount is paid from Canada to the foreign affiliate” (para. 76) – so that s. 95(2)(b)(i) did not apply here given the greater value of the southbound services of BlackBerry. ...

Canada, 2019 FCA 19-- summary under Subsection 95(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure)- Section 95- Subsection 95(1) Crown must produce all documents “considered by officials involved in or consulted during” a GAAR-related audit Predecessors of the appellants had been acquired for their losses in transactions where less than 50% of their voting shares, but more than 90% of their non-voting participating shares, had been acquired. ... Miller J found (at para 32): … It is my view that in a GAAR appeal, draft documents prepared in the context of a taxpayer’s audit or considered by officials involved in or consulted during the audit and assessment of the taxpayer should be disclosed. ... Miller J examined the documents under appeal individually, finding that most of the redacted portions did not have to be produced on the basis that there was no evidence that the particular document was considered by CRA during the audit, that the redacted portions contained taxpayer information which was protected by s.241, that the redacted portion was not relevant to the taxpayers or to the appeals, or that the document was subject to solicitor-client privilege. ...

The Queen, 84 DTC 6374, [1984] CTC 387 (FCTD), rev'd 86 DTC 6348, [1986] 2CTC 108 (FCA)-- summary under Comparison of Provisions Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Comparison of Provisions "[W]here in the same Act, and in relation to the same subject matter, different words are used such choice of different words must be considered intentional and indicative of a change in meaning or a different meaning." It was considered significant that s. 13(7.1) as it read at the relevant time used the phrase "investment allowance" rather than the phrase "investment tax credit" appearing elsewhere in the Act. ...

The Queen, 92 DTC 6129, [1992] 1 CTC 26 (FCA)-- summary under Ordinary Meaning Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Ordinary Meaning After noting that the statement in the Sussex Peerage case (that "if the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense") could "no longer be considered as a satisfactory statement of the law" (p. 6132), MacGuigan J.A. found that the word "cable" should be considered to be an "open-textured" term which therefore could include devices which were not contemplated at the time of the enactment of the relevant provision, i.e., fibre optic cables. ...

The Queen, 2000 DTC 2528 (TCC)-- summary under Subsection 50(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 50- Subsection 50(1) Before going on to find that the taxpayer had realized an ABIL in his 1994 taxation year, as claimed by him, Hamlyn T.C.J. stated (at p. 2530): "A debt is usually considered to have become a bad debt when the taxpayer has exhausted all legal means of collection. The question of when a debt is to be considered uncollectible is a matter of the taxpayer's own judgment as a prudent, pragmatic, businessman. ...

MNR, 63 DTC 1129 that payments made by a corporation to its shareholder were partly deductible to the corporation, Noel J. went on to note in this case that this finding did not establish that the payments were income receipts to the taxpayer (p. 1143): "It has often been held that the fact that a payor considered payments as capital expenditures or income expenses does not necessarily mean that the nature of these payments could not change when considered from the point of view of the recipient. ...

However, in allowing the application for judicial review on the basis that the Minister’s delegate had not considered the possibility that the T1135 returns for the earlier (2005 to 2010) returns were filed voluntarily, i.e., not subject to likely enforcement action, he stated (at paras 27, 30): …Although the enforcement action regarding the Applicant’s 2011-2013 T2 returns is clearly considered by the VDP program to be enforcement action regarding the 2005-2010 period, I do not believe the Minister’s Delegate has provided adequate reasons to support her finding that this enforcement action would likely have uncovered the Applicant’s 2005-2010 T1135 filing obligation. …[T]he CRA officer’s notes do not show that he considered the possibility that some, but not all, of the disclosure may have been voluntary. ... Nothing in the decision shows that the Minister’s Delegate even considered the DOJ letter, nor does the Decision explain why the Minister’s Delegate believed that the CRA’s enforcement action was likely to uncover the Applicant’s 2005-2010 T1135 returns. ...

Regarding the point made in Doubinin that a tax benefit would not typically be considered a "benefit" vitiating a charitable gift, Bowie J stated (at para. 18): I do not read [Doubinin] as purporting there to extend what was said... in Friedberg to suggest that a scheme... to claim tax credits for charitable donations in excess of the donations actually made... [to] not be considered a benefit within the context of the definition of what constitutes a gift. ...

Canada (National Revenue), 2015 FCA 178-- summary under Paragraph 172(3)(a.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 172- Subsection 172(3)- Paragraph 172(3)(a.1) no implied procedural rules in s. 172(3)(a.1) Before confirming the reasonableness of CRA's decision to revoke the Appellant's registration, Ryer JA rejected a submission (at para. 42) that s. 172(3)(a.1) required the Minister to deliver a complete record of of all documents and materials available to the Appeals Directorate as well as those actually considered, stating (at paras. 47-48): This paragraph simply provides a right of appeal from the Confirmation Decision…. ... Accepting the Appellant's argument would have the effect of construing paragraph 172(3)(a.1) so as to implicitly provide the procedural outcome that Justice Sharlow rejected when she considered Rules 317 and 318, the directly applicable procedural dispositions. ...

Sarraf considered that a court appeal was a mere continuation of proceedings which had been commenced against the corporation by the Minister’s assessment – but Dawson JA found that Sarraf had failed to consider that the current appeal procedures were quite different from the Income War Tax Act procedures considered in a yet earlier decision. ...