Search - considered

If there is no such reasonable expectation, the farm losses must be considered to be “personal or living expenses”, and therefore cannot be deducted under paragraph 18(1)(h). ... The respondent, on the other hand, was of the view that subsection 31(1) did not apply to the appellant, and considered his farming activities a hobby, denying him the deduction for the full loss. 4.03.2 The appellant submitted that with reference to the three years in question, the evidence showed that the break-even point had been reached. ... The appellant argued that it was the book loss, and not the loss for tax purposes, that should be considered in determining whether there was a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

Mr Justice Pigeon dismissed the appeal with respect to unjust enrichment, but he found that the trial judge ought to have considered the claim of nullity and to have decided that that issue could not properly be heard without the impleading of the eventual purchaser of the land. ... As such the principles enunciated in Bowen and Pont Viau must be considered in the context of very broad statutory authority. ... The fact that the error has been committed by a representative or agent rather than by the taxpayer is but another circumstance to be considered. ...

It must therefore be determined whether Art 1077 of the Civil Code of the province of Quebec provides for such a payment, and if so, whether the article must be considered “a statute providing in such a case for the payment of interest by the Crown”. ... The application of the law of Quebec to interest on money collected due to be repaid by the Crown was considered by the Exchequer Court in 1902, in James Ross and William McKenzie and His Majesty The King (1902), 7 Ex CR 287. The Court considered Arts 1077 and 1078 of the Civil Code then in effect and concluded that it was bound by these articles. ...

One can read the following provisions: 9.01 Any teacher holding a Nova Scotia Teacher Certificate as issued by the Minister of Education for the Province of Nova Scotia and who has been in the employ of the Board for three (3) consecutive years, including the year of application, may apply for Sabbatical Leave. 9.02 Sabbatical Leave shall be considered continuous service with the Board and all benefits such as salary increments, and cumulative sick leave shall be in effect during the Sabbatical year. 9.03 Sabbatical Leave shall be granted to a teacher for study or other professional development. ... Considering the provisions of the said agreement quoted above, the Court states that sabbatical leave must be “considered continuous service” with the Municipal School Board of Inverness County (9.02) and “such Sabbatical Leave shall be related to the work for which the teacher is responsible” (9.03). ... Moreover, if the teacher fails to fulfill his part of the sabbatical leave agreement “the sum of all money received during the Sabbatical Leave shall be returned to the Board” (9.06). 4.03.4 Whereas the said agreement is the law between the parties; whereas the appellant’s work during the sabbatical leave must be considered as the work for his employer, the Municipal School Board of Inverness County; whereas there is no dispute about the quantum of the travelling expenses, the Court concludes that the appellant “was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of his employment away from his employer’s place of business or in different places” during the year 1980; and, whereas the requirements of subparagraphs 8(l)(h)(ii) and (iii) are also fulfilled the appeal must be allowed. 5. ...

He considered as income the $50 per night, given by the company, as equivalent to an hotel room. ... What the appellant considers as income, is normal hotel expenses reimbursed by the company. 4.03.3 The other problem is whether the expenses incurred on the yacht, such as entertainment, can be considered as expenses within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)(a) quoted above. ... All those expenses must be considered as personal expenses within the meaning of paragraphs 18(l)(h) and (1) quoted above. ...

While the Officer considered it reasonable to assume that private schools offer better teaching materials and smaller classrooms, the Officer referred to “objective documentation” indicating that private schools follow the same curriculum as public schools in the Philippines. ... Being unable to attend a private school is not usually considered to be a hardship warranting H&C relief (Oluwafemi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1045 at para 54). [14] The Officer acknowledged Ms. ... Madera’s claim that she was supporting her parents, sister and niece in the Philippines and considered her employment opportunities in the Philippines. [18] Finally, Ms. ...

Counsel also referred to Interpretation Bulletin IT-145R which reads: Once the fish are caught and transported to a fish processing plant or cannery, any activities carried out to prepare the fish for market, such as filleting, shelling, icing, canning, freezing, smoking, salting, cooking, and pickling are considered to be processing activities. ... The issue was whether in the context of the taxpayer’s business certain activities could be considered as processing or manufacturing of goods. ... They were not designed for that purpose and indeed are considered and sold by the manufacturer as unloaders and not processors. ...

The application now being considered is dated October 29,1981, four months after June 22, 1981, the expiry date of the 90-day statutory delay for serving Notices of Objection under section 165 of the Act. ... In deciding whether or not it was possible for the taxpayer to serve his Notices of Objection within the prescribed time, within the meaning of subsection 167(2) of the Act, the taxpayer’s attitude and his actions during the pertinent period must be considered. ... I do not believe, in interpreting subsection 167(2) of the Act, that the taxpayer’s own failure to act with reasonable care and concern in carrying out his normal responsibilities with respect to income tax matters can be considered as a valid reason why it was not possible to file his Notices on time. ...

Mr Droppo interpreted the Clarkson Company Limited letter as being the end of any chance of recovering the $65,000 and testified that the debt was considered by himself as being bad as of that time. ... Because of Mr Droppo’s knowledge of Montenegrino’s financial problems, it is not unreasonable to surmise that a guaranteed loan made by More-Wood was considered to have had a better chance of receiving the monies owed by Montenegrino to Dutch Sash and Door than by the mechanics’ lien. ... Notwithstanding that Mr Droppo, in retrospect, considered the dept to have become bad in December 1976 and felt that More-Wood would not receive a penny on the loan, Montenegrino, according to the evidence, had some assets in 1977 and even in 1978. ...

The appellant contends that the expenditure of $30,000 made by it for the purchase of the list of property management accounts from Murdock & Maber was an expense properly deductible from income and should not be considered in any way as a capital outlay or as an “eligible” capital expenditure. ... The following cases were cited to me by the appellant and duly considered: Halliday Fuels Limited v MNR, 25 Tax ABC 186; 60 DTC 541; Pioneer Laundry & Dry Cleaners Limited v MNR, 25 Tax ABC 344; 60 DTC 650; The Robert Dixon Company Limited v MNR, 29 Tax ABC 131; 62 DTC 650; Francis David Moyls v MNR, 41 Tax ABC 411; 66 DTC 553; Harbord Investments Limited v MNR, [1970] CTC 717; 70 DTC 1488; Sproule Insurance Services Limited v MNR, [1976] CTC 2096; 76 DTC 1083; Simon, Voyer & Castelli Inc. v MNR, [1979] CTC 2503; 79 DTC 41. The following cases were cited by the respondent and duly considered: Irvin Charles Schacter v MNR, (No. 723 v MNR) [1962] CTC 437; 62 DTC 1271; Dominion Dairies Limited v MNR, [1966] CTC 1; 66 DTC 5028; Southam Business Publications Limited v MNR, [1966] CTC 265; 66 DTC 5215; Canada Starch Company Limited v MNR, [1968] CTC 466; 68 DTC 5320; Cumberland Investments Limited (formerly Douglas, Rogers, Limited) v Her Majesty The Queen, [1973] CTC 821; 74 DTC 6001; [1975] CTC 439; 75 DTC 5309; Walter J. ...