Search - considered

Liu had a genuine belief in Christianity, the RAD then considered the risk he might face should he return to China, an analysis the RPD had not undertaken due to its conclusion that he was not credible. ... Liu are not at risk of persecution simply for belonging to an unregistered church. [22]   The Respondent notes that the RAD is presumed to have considered all relevant materials, and that Mr. ... Liu’s fear of persecution as a Protestant in China. [33]   The RAD considered up-to-date country conditions reports from independent and credible sources, as well as recent reports dating from 2017. ...

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION] REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Favreau J. [1]   This is an appeal from the notices of redetermination that the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) issued to the appellant in respect of the goods and services tax / harmonized sales tax credit (GST/HST credit) for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years and in respect of the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) (formerly the Canada Child Tax Benefit) for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 base taxation years. [2]   The appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal concerns the following periods during which the Minister considered that the appellant had shared custody of children C. and M.: Eligibility Taxation Years and Base Taxation Years Periods Child C. ... The purpose of both plans is to ensure that each parent with shared custody of a qualified dependant can claim part of the tax credit and part of the benefit. [19]   In the case under consideration, it is accepted that children C. and M. are qualified dependents for the purposes of both plans. [20]   For the purposes of the GST/HST credit, the appellant and her ex-spouse are both an “eligible individual” entitled to the credit, but if one of them is a “shared-custody parent” within the meaning of section 122.6, the amount of the credit is split in two. [21]   For the purposes of the CCB, the term “eligible individual” is defined in section 122.6 as a person who (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the father or mother of the qualified dependant (i) who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant and who is not a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant, or (ii) is a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant. [22]   For the purposes of the definition of the term “eligible individual”, the following three paragraphs of the definition must be considered: (f)   where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g)   the presumption referred to in paragraph 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h)   prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing; [23]   Paragraph 122.6(f) involves a presumption in favour of the mother of the dependent, but paragraph (g) clarifies that this presumption does not apply in the circumstances provided for in Regulation 6301(1), which reads as follows: Non-application of Presumption 6301(1)   For the purposes of paragraph (g) of the definition eligible individual in section 122.6 of the Act, the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of that definition does not apply in the circumstances where (a) the female parent of the qualified dependant declares in writing to the Minister that the male parent, with whom she resides, is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of each of the qualified dependants who reside with both parents; (b) the female parent is a qualified dependant of an eligible individual and each of them files a notice with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant; (c) there is more than one female parent of the qualified dependant who resides with the qualified dependant and each female parent files a notice with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the qualified dependant; or (d)   more than one notice is filed with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant who resides with each of the persons filing the notices if such persons live at different locations. [24]   Among the circumstances described in Regulation 6301, the Regulation described in paragraph (d) applies in this case, given the benefit claim submitted by Mr.  ... Nickle, the monthly custody period was therefore 39% in terms of hours of custody and 43% in terms of nights of custody. [33]   Even if the percentage of custody most favourable to the father, 43%, were used, this percentage would not be high enough for him to be considered a parent who resides with his two children on a near equal basis with the appellant. [34]   The recent Federal Court of Appeal decisions in Lavrinenko v. ...

In support of the Appellant’s contention that the payments contemplated in section 14.1 of the agreement were never to be considered as maintenance she filed letters from Mr. ... Analysis I believe that in certain circumstances payments out of a joint bank account of separated spouses will be considered as maintenance payments. ... It is clear that from April to September 1990 the parties were still negotiating and attempting to arrive at a fixed number for what might be considered true maintenance. ...

He considered that he lacked experience in the real estate field, his practice being limited to a general notarial practice. ... He considered these properties as a good investment since they did not need repairs and seemed to him to be well built. ... The whole of the evidence must be considered, including the taxpayer’s conduct. ...

He testified he set the rates by verifying what was available to Calgary families, rates of hotels in the area and considered the facilities he was offering. ... He calculated a revenue potential based on a rental of 365 nights per year, but to be realistic, considered a 50 per cent occupancy rate at $750 per week. He considered gross monthly rentals would thus total $1,950 and expenses for the year would aggregate $14,426. ...

Inc., and since this could therefore be considered as a punitive provision. ... Inc. must be considered as dividends paid to P.W.I. (U.S.A.) Inc. by P.W.I. ... The same treatment was never considered for loans to non-resident corporations, any more than the non-taxation of dividends paid to them. ...

McKay was of the view the option agreement had not been terminated on the occasion of his dismissal and that even after February 16, 1984 he considered himself to have rights under the option agreement. ... In my view, the present situation with respect to income tax on this award of “an identifiable sum for loss of earnings" must be considered legally insecure. ... I have considered earlier this year facts not wholly different from those at bar in Dundas v. ...

With regard to the main issue, namely whether the amounts are on account of capital, there are two leading decisions to be considered: St John Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Co Ltd v MNR, [1944] CTC 106; 2 DTC 663, which seems at first sight to confirm the appellant’s theory, and Valley Camp Ltd v MNR, [1974] CTC 418;74 DTC 6337, which seems to confirm that of the respondent. ... In each case the true character of the subsidy must be ascertained anid in so doing the purpose for which it was granted may properly be considered. ... If the sum involved in St John Dry Dock had been considered to be on account of income rather than on account of capital, the recipient might have remitted part of the subsidy received to the government in the form of income tax. ...

The respondent says that, since the respondent is taxing an individual, the calendar year must be used and, all things considered, the mortgages are not payment. ... According to case law and the Department of National Revenue’s interpretation bulletin, and as counsel for the respondent himself admitted, for purposes of section 8, money’s worth can be considered as a valid repayment of a loan. If that is so, then whether or not, in the absence of fraud or sham, the companies are related and controlled by one person, and whether or not the recipient chooses to convert his “money’s worth” into cash, the money’s worth, once accepted by its creditor, must in my opinion be considered as a valid repayment of the loan within the meaning of section 8(2) of the Act. ...

It should be noted, moreover, that after the 1967 judgment of Jackett, J in Hansen, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly laid down in 1968 that a lump sum payment made once and for all cannot be considered a payment of alimony. ... However, it has long been established that it is not necessary for alimony to continue throughout the recipient’s lifetime in order to be considered alimony (No 67 v MNR, supra). Moreover, if a payment is made in order to prevent payment of alimony in the future, it may be considered to be compensation in lieu of the alimony lost by the spouse or, as was stated by Mr St-Onge in David Franklin v MNR, supra, to “discharge the husband to support his wife, which is the reverse of alimony.” ...