Search - considered

The Board considered mainly 1972, 1973 and 1974. Living expenses (hotel and meals)—1972: $6,720; 1973: $7,250; 1974: $7,500. ... An amount of $750 is considered reasonable for each of these years. Depreciation The purchase of a- “Thunderbird” for $9,500 in 1973 is definitely considered unreasonable. ... The taxpayers had not shown any evidence of requiring a car considered to be a luxury car for the needs of their businesses. ...

The credit note should not be considered apart from the transaction out of which it arises. ... That obligation must be considered as subsisting until satisfied or expired. ... Even if the credit notes were to be considered by themselves they could not be considered as unenforceable for indefiniteness. ...

  [6]      In 2003, the Minister of National Revenue ("the Minister") considered the amount of $18,333.38 as capital expenditures, not current expenditures. The Minister also considered an amount of $2,339.56, included in the expenses claimed in 2004, to be a capital expense incurred in 2003. ... The balance of $6,248.93 was considered to be of a capital nature.   [8]      The Appellants are only disputing the amounts that the Minister considered to be capital expenditures. ...

Further it was argued that what was offered to the appellant was a "package deal” and even if a part could be considered as a royalty payment, which was denied, there was an obligation on the Minister to show what portion of the fee was considered to be subject to tax by subparagraph 212(1)(d)(i) of the Income Tax Act. ... The matter of the affiliation fee considered to be a royalty within the meaning of subparagraph 212(1)(d)(i) of the Act and Article XII of the Canada- U.S. ... There is no need for the Court to decide what items, if any, could be considered as royalty payments. ...

On appeal, and after having considered new evidence, the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] accepted that Ms. ... Ipaye submits that sections 110 and 111 of the IRPA cannot be interpreted as providing the RAD with the authority to reject a claim on a ground not considered by the RPD and that the IRPA does not allow the RAD to create a new record or seek submissions on matters not considered by the RPD. [15]   In Huruglica, the Federal Court of Appeal considered sections 110 and 111 of the IRPA. ... The RAD may, on the basis of the record before the RPD and any additional evidence or submissions properly placed before it on appeal (IRPA subsections 110(3), (4) and (5) and (6)), decide a matter on a ground not considered by the RPD. ...

He was an industrious person and there is uncontradicted evidence that he has put in long hours on farming chores which can hardly be considered as recreational. ... Nor can the appellant be considered, as was Mr Brown, as an absentee farmer, since the appellant worked on the farm every day — admittedly on off hours. ... Though the appellant’s activities must be considered as farming, he cannot be considered as having a reasonable expectation of profit in 1967 and 1968. ...

Appellant further contends that the disbursements made by respondent should be considered as a loan to the company. ... It is only under quite exceptional or unusual circumstances that such an operation should be considered as a speculation. ... In my view, the payments made by respondent could not properly be considered as an investment in the circumstances in which they were made. ...

Bienvenue, who are considered full-time employees, the other employees who worked for the business clearly cannot be considered full-time employees as they worked on average between 14 and 22 hours per week, that is, 96 hours (Laforest T.), 90 hours (Williston H.) and 60 hours (Wilson N.). ... Bienvenue, who are considered full-time employees, the other employees who worked for the business clearly cannot be considered full-time employees as they worked on average between 14 and 23 hours per week, that is, 67 hours (Laforest T.), 99 hours (Williston H.) and 60 hours (Wilson N.). ... Although Roy N. was considered a full-time employee from May 2013 to December 2013, he cannot be considered a full-time employee for January 2014 because he worked only 80 hours, or 18.4 hours per week, and he did not work from February to April 2014. ...

If the amount deducted exceeded the undeducted contributions from prior years, then the excess would be considered to be paid from the amount contributed in that year. ... On this basis the contributions deducted in 2003 of $15,500 would first be considered to be from the undeducted contributions from prior years of $12,501, and the balance of $2,999 would be considered to be from the payment of $14,290 made in 2003. ... The contributions deducted in each year, in this case, should first be considered to be from the undeducted contributions of prior years and any excess should then be considered to be from the contributions made in that particular year ...

Miller J. considered the phrase in 1146491 Ontario Ltd. v. R, 2002 G.T.C. 235. ... Beaubier J., at paragraph 9, considered the meaning of "consumption" and found it to mean "the action or fact of consuming or destroying" [3]. He then considered the meaning of "food" and found it to be "what is taken into the system to maintain life and growth, and to supply the waste of tissue; ailment, nourishment, provisions, victuals". ...