Search - considered

However, whatever factors are considered, they must show that a person or group of persons has the clear right and ability to change the board of directors of the corporation in question or to influence in a very direct way the shareholders who would otherwise have the ability to elect the board of directors (Silicon Graphics, [2002] FCA 260, para. [67]). ... The appellant did not challenge the relevance of the factors considered by the trial judge. ... However, it did not show how the opposite conclusion drawn by the trial judge was unreasonable or invalid. [30]      On the last factor considered by the trial judge (the family relationship between shareholders), the following passage from the reasons indicates the relevance and force of that factor in the context of the case at bar (paragraph 38):... it is reasonable to believe that Mr. and Ms. ...

(a) Deduction of non-capital losses of a non-resident of a business not carried on in Canada The appellant's argument on this branch of its appeal requires first that the following definitions in the Act be considered. ... In 1976 it read as follows: 115. (1) For the purposes of this Act, a non-resident person's taxable income earned in Canada for a taxation year is the amount of his income for the year that would be determined under section 3 if (c) the only losses referred to in paragraph 3(d) were losses from businesses carried on by him in Canada, minus the aggregate of such of the deductions from income permitted for the purpose of computing taxable income as may reasonably be considered wholly applicable and of such part of any other of the said deductions as may reasonably be considered applicable. ... Appeal allowed in part. made by virtue of the taxpayer’s having ceased to be resident in Canada were made in such period or periods, and (b) the amount that would be his taxable income earned in Canada for the year if at no time in the year he had been resident in Canada, computed as though the portion of the year that is not in the period or periods referred to in paragraph (a) were the whole taxation year, minus the aggregate of such of the deductions from income permitted for the purpose of computing taxable income as may reasonably be considered wholly applicable to the period or periods referred to in paragraph (a) and of such part of any other of the said deductions as may reasonably be considered applicable to such period or periods. 1 *114. ...

    [5]                I t must also be remembered that each taxpayer relief request must be considered on its own merit. ... The applicant also argues that he was not afforded reasonable assurance that his correspondence with the CRA had been included and considered by decision-makers as part of the requested review ... In any event, although it was one element considered, the compliance history was not a determinative factor in the refusal to grant relief in this case. ...

The defendant, on the other hand, contends that it is income and not a capital gain and, further, that it is income from an “active business” referred to in the last- mentioned subsection and is, therefore, not to be considered as investment income under paragraph 129(4)(a). ... It is true, as stated by my brother Walsh, J in MRT Investments Limited et al v Her Majesty The Queen, [1975] CTC 354; 75 DTC 5224, that what really must be considered is the true nature of the activities and not merely the particular designation which the taxpayer chooses to attach to them. ... This, of course, is evidence which might tend to establish that the taxpayer considered that it was holding the lands listed in its inventory for the express purpose of resale at all times. ...

  [25]            As a matter of fact, in CIBC World Markets, the Court explicitly considered itself bound by the decision in Galway. ...   [28]            To this submission, I must answer that, even assuming the Judge did err, such error could not be considered material. ... Rule 147(3) lists a wide range of factors a judge may consider when awarding costs and the Appellant failed to demonstrate that those factors were not considered by the Judge ...

Judge Rip stated: 23        One factor to be considered is whether or not the alleged separate supply can be realistically omitted from the overall supply. ... The refundable nature of a deposit is considered an implied term with regard to deposits. ... The assignment of the Deposits can also be considered an assignment of a beneficial interest in money, which is not a “supply” within the meaning of the ETA. ...

(x)... any amount... received... in the course of earning income from a business... where the amount can reasonably be considered to have been received (iii) as an inducement... or (iv) as a reimbursement, contribution, allowance or as assistance... ... Therefore, a portion ($321,440) of the inducement amount can reasonably be considered to have been received as a "contribution" or as "assistance" in respect of the cost of those leasehold improvements within the meaning of subparagraph 12(1)(x)(iv). ... Therefore, that remaining portion cannot “reasonably be considered to have been received" in respect of the cost of property within the meaning of subparagraph 12(1)(x)(iv). ...

The Queen, 94 DTC 6669 (FCTD) per Pinard, J. on appeal from the Tax Court of Canada; both decisions considered the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of the words in Nowegijick v. ... " If the answer to that question is in the negative, then a sufficient nexus exists between the receipt and the loss of employment for the payment to be considered a retiring allowance.             ... This being so, such damages can rightly be considered a "retiring allowance" as that term is now defined by subsection 248(1) of the Act. ...

The plaintiff argues that the defendant is a Class II farmer because his accounting practice cannot be considered to be a sideline business or a subordinate source of income. ... It is clear that these factors are to be considered cumulatively, not disjunctively: Morrissey v. ... In addition to the case of Moldowan, supra, I have also considered the following decisions: Graham v. ...

However, the Minister still has a way out, namely subsection 225.2(1), cited above, which allows him to take immediate steps for recovery when it may reasonably be considered that giving the taxpayer time to pay the amount assessed in respect of him would jeopardize recovery of the amount. ... The test of “whether it may reasonably be considered'' is susceptible of being reasonably translated into the test of whether the evidence on balance of probability is sufficient to lead to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that collection would be jeopardized by delay. ... Lafram- boise (supra) that the word "may” and the phrase “reasonably be considered" read together give the Minister great latitude. ...