Search - considered

Meirte of which he was the sole beneficiary; (c) that the Estate received and reported the receipt of interest in the amount of $10,795.37 and $17,041.95; (d) that the said amounts of $10,795.37 and $17,041.95 were the income of the Appellant, whether or not it was paid to him in the year; (e) that the said amounts referred to above were considered to be payable in the above taxation years in that the beneficiary of the Estate had an enforceable right to the income; and (f) that under the terms of the Will, and on the basis of the Appellant being the sole beneficiary of an Estate which he caused to be created, the amounts of $10,795.37 and $17,041.95 are considered to be payable to the Appellant, as the sole beneficiary, and should be included in his personal income. ... Subsection 104(24) provides that for the purposes of subsections (6) and (13), supra, an amount shall not be considered to be payable in a taxation year unless it was paid in the year to the person to whom it was payable or he was entitled in that year to enforce payment thereof. ...

., at page 443 (D.T.C. 5282-83) It is, of course, obvious that a loan made by a person who is not in the business of lending money is ordinarily to be considered as an investment. It is only under quite exceptional or unusual circumstances that such an operation should be considered as a speculation. ... Under those circumstances, the outlay made by respondent in the last year, when the speculative nature of the undertaking was even more marked than at the outset due to financial difficulties, cannot be considered as an investment... it is clear that the monies were not invested to derive an income therefrom but in the hope of making a profit on the whole transaction. ...

was determined before that time to be a member of a class defined in the Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations made under the Immigration Act,   and for the purposes of this definition,   (f)         where a 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 (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and   (h)        prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing;   [5]              An eligible individual must be a resident of Canada, must reside with the qualified dependant and must be the parent who primarily fulfills the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant. ...   [6]              Regulation 6302 sets out the factors to be considered to determine what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant.   6302. Factors-- For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition “eligible individual” in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant:   1.                   ...

Whether a payment is to be considered an allowance or a maintenance under the Act, depends on the circumstances and on the effect of an agreement, when there is one. ... In The Queen v Barbara Sills, [1985] 1 CTC 49; 85 DTC 5096, Heald, J, speaking on behalf of the Federal Court of Appeal, considered whether amounts were payable on a periodic basis and said at 52: So long as the agreement provides that the moneys are payable on a periodic basis the requirement of the subsections is met. ... In Gilles St Arnaud v MNR, [1982] CTC 2697; 82 DTC 1723, the Court clearly established “that it is not necessary for alimony to continue throughout the recipient’s lifetime in order to be considered alimony.’’ ...

A deteriorated house and barn were considered of little or no value. Elmwood Drive runs from the centre of the city in a northerly direction. ... The respondent's expert viewed the property as very rural in nature, not to be compared with active residential development to the south of the TransCanada Highway and to be considered without sewer or water services. ... Having considered all of the evidence as to value, I have come to the conclusion that the appellants have over stated and the respondent under stated the value. ...

This passage from Freud (supra) at 443 (DTC 5282) is applicable to the instant case, and I quote: It is, of course, obvious that a loan made by a person who is not in the business of lending money is ordinarily to be considered as an investment. It is only under quite exceptional or unusual circumstances that such an operation should be considered as a speculation. however, the circumstances of the present case are quite unusual and exceptional. ... Under those circumstances, the outlay made by respondent in the last year, when the speculative nature of the undertaking was even more marked than at the outset due to financial difficulties, cannot be considered as an investment. ...

  [4]              The Separation Agreement specified that the parties recognized and acknowledged that they were agreeing to child support based upon section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines dealing with shared custody and that they had considered the increased costs of the shared-custody arrangement, including appropriate housing, transportation and the duplication of necessities.   ... Analysis   [11]         This issue has been considered several times by this Court and it has consistently dismissed taxpayers’ appeals in cases of shared custody. ... Rather, section 9 starts off from a simple set-off but requires further considerations to be considered and appropriate adjustments made in setting child support. ...

If they had simply sold and assigned the option to the purchasers who could then have exercised the same, there could be no doubt but that they were simply disposing of a capital asset and the profit realized would have been considered to be a capital gain. ... That case concerned the exercise of an option to purchase for the purpose of resale at a profit and in that respect resembles, to some extent, the present case, but there the Board stated ‘‘the transaction being considered herein does constitute a plunge in the waters of commerce amounting to an adventure or concern in the nature of trade to a sufficient extent to bring it within the definition of business contained in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 139 of the [former] Income Tax Act.” The difference between that case and the one being considered is that, in the latter, the determination to sell was occasioned by the state of business and the subsequent sale followed the taxpayer placing the land with a real estate agent to sell. ...

The determination of the individual's chief source of income is extensively considered with reference to section 31 of the Act, but unlike subsection 31(2), which gives the Minister a discretionary power to make such a determination, section 119 of the Act left the determination of question of fact to be decided by the Court. ... M.N.R., supra, the Federal Court held that in its opinion the net dollar and cents position, when viewed through the five years of insight is not the only or conclusive criteria to be considered in determining the question of fact. ... All the factors as referred to in the above cases must be considered. ...

  [5]     It is the Crown’s further position that when a copy of that initial appeal was received by the Court in December 2004, it was received more than 90 days after the reassessments and could not be considered to validate the institution of the appeal. ... This issue does not appear to have been previously considered by the Court with respect to either late filed objections or appeals. ...   [13]    This case and this last issue are significantly different than the issues of awareness and understanding of an assessment, and of discoverability, considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in the case of H. ...