Search - considered

During closing submissions, she asked the Appellant if he was able to advance any argument “that had not been considered by the superior courts in the cases referred to” (para. 57). ... The question is whether, considered in  the context of the law and the litigation process, the claim has no reasonable chance of succeeding. ... It is argued that not dismissing the appeal would adversely affect the credibility, the integrity and effectiveness of the judicial system and result in a multiplicity of proceedings on a matter that has already been considered by three levels of court in Manitoba. ...

They report that the Applicant’s submissions were received and considered. ... The reviewing court must refrain from “reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker”: CHRC, at para. 55; see also Khosa, at para. 64; Dr. ... The Respondent submits these documents should not be considered by the Court. ...

The function of this requirement is to remove from the ambit of the GAAR transactions or series of transactions that may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for a non-tax purpose. ... Section 245(3) specifically defines "avoidance transaction" as a transaction that results in a tax benefit, either by itself or as part of a series of transactions, "unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit". [17]     It will be noted that the definition of "avoidance transaction" uses the words " unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit " (Underlining added). ... Unless the Minister can establish that the avoidance transaction frustrates or defeats the purpose for which the tax benefit was intended to be conferred, it is not abusive. [24]     Based on my understanding of the evidence before me and the applicable GAAR legislation I do not believe that any of the transactions under review could be considered to be "abusive tax avoidance" transactions. [25]     For the reasons outlined above I have concluded that the GAAR provisions should not be applied in this situation. [26]     The appeals are allowed, with costs. ...

The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 46; considered:  Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1957] S.C.R. 717; Bronfman Trust v. ... He considered the tests summarized by this Court in Johns-Manville Canada Inc. v. ... If the money adds to the financial capital then the payment of interest on that loan will be considered to be a payment “on account of capital”.  ...

The forward contract must be considered separately from the credit facility and the securities pledge agreement. ... With respect to the final purported error, the trial judge’s reasons must be considered as a whole. ... This Court has previously considered how to determine a taxpayer’s intention. ...

Cases Cited                      Considered: Smith v. Anderson (1880), 15 Ch. ... On first reflection this sort of income could realistically be considered either business income or property income. ... The Court of Appeal considered that the fact that the taxpayer was a company in existence for some particular purpose "is a matter to be considered when you come to decide whether doing that is carrying on a business or not" (at p. 202). ...

The letter invited a response by a certain date, failing which revocation proceedings would be considered. ... Purchasing of bullet proof vests is not considered [...] to be an expenditure on a charitable activity. ... It has not based its decision on each of these findings considered alternatively. ...

.… [24] In my review of the Order, it is clear that the Associate Judge properly considered the application and correctly applied the applicable legal tests in determining that the application should be struck because it was bereft of any possibility of success. [25] The Applicant has not established that Order contains a palpable and overriding error in finding that the application was not compliant with Rule 301. ... Abuse of process [26] In addition, the Applicant argues that the Order striking the application without leave to amend because it was an abuse of process is an error. [27] The Respondent argues that the Associate Judge carefully considered the application and the Applicant’s written representations. ... “Julie Blackhawk” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2506-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: JEFF EWERT v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA) MOTION IN WRITING PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES, SOR/98-106 CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO. ...

Armstrong's request for recognition of his 1993 rental loss could have been considered. Could the 1993 rental loss have been considered in the pending court proceedings? ... I see no reason in law or in principle why the Minister could not have considered Mr. ...

(the “Act”) which provides as follows: 20 (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), 18(1)(b) and 18(1)(h), in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from a business or property, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto (…) (e.2) the least of the following amounts in respect of a life insurance policy (other than an annuity contract or LIA policy): (i) the premiums payable by the taxpayer under the policy in respect of the year, if (A) an interest in the policy is assigned to a restricted financial institution in the course of a borrowing from the institution, (B) the interest payable in respect of the borrowing is or would, but for subsections 18(2) and 18(3.1) and sections 21 and 28, be deductible in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year, and (C) the assignment referred to in clause 20(1)(e.2)(i)(A) is required by the institution as collateral for the borrowing (ii) the net cost of pure insurance in respect of the year (other than in respect of a period after 2013 during which the policy is a 10/8 policy), as determined in accordance with the regulations, in respect of the interest in the policy referred to in clause (i)(A), and (iii) the portion, of the lesser of the amounts determined under subparagraphs (i) and (ii) in respect of the policy, that can reasonably be considered to relate to the amount owing from time to time during the year by the taxpayer to the institution under the borrowing; (My Emphasis.) [18]   Accordingly, life insurance premiums may be deducted where (i) an interest in a life insurance policy is assigned to a lending institution in the context of a borrowing transaction; (ii) interest on the loan is otherwise deductible to the borrower and finally; (iii) the assignment is required by the lending institution as collateral for the borrowing. [19]   The amount that may be deducted is the lesser of the premiums actually paid and the “net cost of pure insurance” (as set out in subparagraph 20(1)(e.2)(ii)) to distinguish between universal or whole life insurance policies that would typically include a savings component. [20]   The other proviso is that the amount of the premium that can be deducted must “reasonably be considered to relate to the amount owing from time to time” during the year by the taxpayer “to the lending institution”. ... The Queen, [2003] 1 C.T.C. 2714, the Court considered two letters tendered as evidence of the assignment. ... In other words, with regards to the second loan transaction, it is not possible for the Court to correlate the life insurance premiums paid with the balance due on a loan for the taxation years in question. [33]   The Appellant’s agent argued in closing that the proceeding was governed by the informal procedure and that, all things considered, sufficient evidence had been adduced to support the expenses being claimed. [34]   In essence, the Appellant is arguing that the Court should consider the evidence on a less onerous and technical standard in accordance with the objective of the informal procedure: subsection 18.15(3) of the Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.  ...