Search - considered

  [2]      The question of whether a director who has been assessed under section 323 of the Act can challenge the assessment on the basis that the underlying corporate GST assessment is incorrect has been considered a number of times by this Court with varying results. ... Bajan and despite the letter of his accountant, it does not appear that the company considered the amount owing by Harbour Construction as a bad debt prior to the settlement reached in June 1995. ... An examination for discovery in the matter was scheduled to begin April 19, 1995 and a trial date had been set. [7] The letter also indicates that as late as 1999, Bajan Construction was seeking advice on the possibility of pursuing Harbour for the additional payment of $35,000 provided for in the June 1995 settlement agreement. [12]     In light of these efforts being made to collect the amount owing, I am not satisfied that Bajan Construction considered the $265,728.43 as a bad debt.  ...

  [10]     A somewhat similar issue has been considered by the Tax Court on a number of occasions ...   [11]     The Tax Court considered a similar issue in the decision of Creagh v. ...   [20]     There is no evidence before this Court to suggest that the United Nations considered the Appellant to be an employee. ...

[admitted]   (c)               Prior to the period in issue, the Appellant was always considered the parent who primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the care and upbringing of her child Cynthia. ... The law   [7]               The definition of "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act was worded as follows at the relevant time:     "eligible individual" in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time   (a)        resides with the qualified dependant,   (b)       is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant,   (c)        is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse or common‑law partner of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year,   (d)       is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b), and   (e)        is, or whose cohabiting spouse or common-law partner is, a Canadian citizen or a person who   (i)      is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,   (ii)     is a temporary resident within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time,   (iii)     is a protected person within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,   (iv)    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 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 ... 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:   (a)                 the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant;   (b)                the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides;   (c)                 the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant;   (d)                the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant;   (e)                 the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person;   (f)                  the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis;   (g)                 the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and   (h)                 the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides ...

The problem has often been considered in actions brought under s. 4(1)(e)(i) of the Divorce Act and, generally speaking, a finding that the parties were living separate and apart from each other has been made where the following circumstances were present:   (i)         Spouses occupying separate bedrooms.   ... Reference to these seven factors will prevent an inappropriate emphasis on one factor to the exclusion of others and ensure that all relevant factors are considered.  .....   ... These short periods of time could not be considered to be times when he was living separate and apart from his spouse because of a breakdown of the marriage. ...

The proposed factors to be considered are:   (a)  the nature of the litigation, its public significance, and the need to clarify the law, (b)  the number and complexity or technical nature of the issues in dispute, and (c)  the likely expense involved in relation to the amount in dispute.   ... The proposed amendments will be pre-published in Canada Gazette Part I and comments received on the content of those amendments will be considered by both the subcommittee and the plenary committee.   2 R.S.C. 1985, c. ... I used the word “may” because the question of the admissibility of the expert evidence is not a matter to be considered at this stage ...

He considered driving or shipping it to Alberta. Upon learning that shipping would cost in the area of $1,500 [2], he decided it would make more sense to sell it and purchase a new one in Alberta. ... Concluding that a horse and trailer could not reasonably be considered “household effects”, Couture, C.J. dismissed the appeal. ... It is no different in kind from other recreational vehicles such as a motor boat, a ski-doo or a bicycle, any of which would normally be considered part of the household effects under subsection 62(3). ...

Yang) was justified in carrying out a net worth in this situation, I have considered the following points:   (a)     The Appellant did not file income tax returns for the 1994 to 2000 taxation years until the Minister sent Demands for Income Tax Returns.   ... Yang considered payments made by the Appellant to Delia Roulstone as income of the Appellant ...   [32]     I have considered this point and I have concluded that the Appellant should be allowed to deduct an additional 30% of the expenses that were disallowed in the income tax Reassessment.   ...

  [23]     Subsection 252(1) of the Act means that the individual who is wholly dependent on a taxpayer for support and of whom the taxpayer has, in law or in fact, the custody and control, is considered to be the taxpayer’s child ...   [24]     Subsection 252(2) of the Act means that the taxpayer is then considered to be the mother or the father of this child ... In order for them to be considered parents, Maximilian would have to be wholly dependent on them and they would have to have had custody and, in law or in fact, control of him ...

(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;   [18]     These definitions require residence of the qualified dependant with the individual ... Kerr cannot be considered as an eligible individual, because he did not reside with the qualified dependent as is requested by the definitions of "eligible individual" ... 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:   (a)        the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b)        the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c)        the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d)        the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e)        the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f)        the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g)        the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h)        the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides ...

In order to resolve the issue before the Court, the total relationship between the parties and the combined force of the whole scheme of operations must be considered in order to resolve the central or fundamental question as to whether the workers were performing their services for the Appellant as people in business on their own account or were performing them in the capacity of employees.  ... I do not agree with the Minister that the cars which were the item that were being sold can be considered a tool.  ... Throughout the proceedings, I considered drawing an adverse inference against the Appellant by virtue of the failure to call any of these 17 workers and I understand the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Levesque v. ...