Search - considered

In regards to the other out of Canada trips, they are different in nature and should be considered as convention expenses under section 20. ... Where a business has not been able to generate a profit, or at least show a reasonable expectation of profit in the near future, section 67 should seriously be considered. ...

Tait would have considered such as income. This decision was subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Re Lauer and Stekl (1975), 54 D.L.R. (3d) 159. ... In no way can an asset on hand which is normally considered as income become a capital asset of a spousal trust nor can it remain as an income asset and not be the property of the life tenant. ...

It has been argued that the three factors, namely: — the time spent; — the capital committed; — the profitability both actual and potential: could and should be read and considered disjunctively. ... Potentiality of profit, rather than actuality is to be considered in applying section 31 since it applies only where there is a /oss in a taxation year. ...

They were generally held in the evenings or on Sundays in her home to discuss the company's affairs.Having considered the evidence and the legislation, I am not satisfied that the amount of $12,088 paid to the appellant in the taxation year 1982 was an allowance within the meaning of paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Act. ... The Federal Court of Appeal has considered the meaning of the word "allowance" in the context of the application of paragraph 11(1)(1) (now 60(b)) of the Act dealing with alimony payments. ...

That decision dealt with an insurance agent who set aside, as a reserve, amounts which had been received as premiums under policies which the agent considered not to have yet been earned. ... I have considered one other aspect of the wording of subsection 32(1) and that is the wording which states that an insurance agent "may deduct as a reserve in respect of unearned commission an amount.... ...

The appellant argued that the position is analogous to that considered in Huston et al. v. ... At pages 617-18 (All E.R. 134) Lord Wilberforce said: No doubt in a certain sense a beneficiary under a discretionary trust has an "interest": the nature of it may, sufficiently for the purpose, be spelt out by saying that he has a right to be considered as a potential recipient of benefit by the trustees and a right to have his interest protected by a court of equity. ...

It shall not be considered precedence for future grievance resolutions; 4. ... It would therefore appear to me that based upon Savage (supra) and Nowegijick (supra) the amount at issue in this appeal — $5,000 — should be considered as a “benefit”, ”... in respect of... ...

March 23, 1985 is more than 60 days after the end of the year 1984, which is the taxation year involved in the instant case. 4.03.2 Legally, in civil law, can it be said that the payment made by the appellant on February 18, 1985 with a postdated cheque dated March 23, 1985, can be considered as a payment made on February 18, 1985? ... In my opinion, the payment made by the appellant with the postdated cheque dated March 23, 1985 cannot be considered as a payment made on February 18, 1985. 4.03.3 The appellant, however, brought up his sincere intention to pay on February 18, 1985 and wondered whether the Court can construe the law on that basis. ...

I respectfully agree with that reasoning with reference to subsection 238(1) of the Income Tax Act, but when regard is had for the provisions of subsection 231(3) of the Act, it is not clear that Parliament intended that the Minister, having laid a charge for failure to comply with a demand pursuant to that subsection, and having obtained a conviction, was at liberty to make a fresh demand and upon failure to comply with that fresh demand to then lay a charge and obtain a conviction for failure to comply with that fresh demand, When the penalty provided in subsection 238(2) of the Act is considered in relation to a failure to comply with a demand pursuant to subsection 231(3) in my opinion the type of penalty provided in that subsection indicates that Parliament intended that the penalty be imposed only once for failure to comply with a demand pursuant to subsection 231(3). The amount provided of between $200 and $10,000 does not indicate to me that Parliament intended that the Minister be able to repeatedly make the demand if the taxpayer failed to comply with the first demand, and then when subparagraph (b) is considered, that in addition to a maximum fine of $10,000 a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months is provided, I am of the view that Parliament did not intend that the taxpayer be open to continued demands by the Minister and the imposition of continued penalties of that magnitude. ...

The Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise or such other person as the Minister of National Revenue could have designated had not, as of the date of the hearing in the present case, considered and weighed the circumstances of the case and reported his opinion and recommendation thereon to the Minister as contemplated by section 162 of the Customs Act; furthermore, the Minister of National Revenue had not yet given his decision or referred the matter to court as contemplated by section 163 of the Customs Act. ... I have concluded that the wisest course to follow here is to refrain from intervening at this time and to allow the difficult and basic question of constitutionality and Charter transgression to be fully considered at the trial of this action, where declaratory relief can be given. ...