Search - considered

On the basis of income and expense projections, the overall rental operations was considered viable and had a reasonable expectation of profit. ... For the annual interest expense to be considered “reasonable in the circumstances”, surely it alone should not generally exceed the gross annual income. ... I conclude that, in the present circumstances, interest should not generally exceed the gross rental income in order to be considered a reasonable expense. ...

As such, this venture was considered viable and had a reasonable expectation of profit. ... For the annual interest expense to be considered “reasonable in the circumstances”, surely it alone should not generally exceed the gross annual income. ... I conclude that, in the present circumstances, interest should not exceed the gross rental income in order to be considered a reasonable expense. ...

Although he had previously claimed charitable donations of $25 to $100, he had also participated in various charitable activities and donated a substantial amount of time and energy or what he referred to as “sweat equity”. [13] He was introduced to the GLGI Program by his insurance agent whom he knew and considered as a friend. ... Analysis [17] Having considered the evidence, the Court finds that the Appellant has not established a prima facie case that the Minister’s assumptions were incorrect. [18] In particular, the Court finds that the Appellant received the informational brochures describing the GLGI Program that he then reviewed with his spouse. ... Canada, 2010 FCA 287 (para. 12), it agreed with the trial judge’s conclusion that if there is just one interconnected transaction, no part of it can be considered a gift. [32] Similarly, in Makou v. ...

The Minister later expanded the Appellant’s eligibility to include the 2005 taxation year onwards. [8] By letter dated November 13, 2018, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) explained that the Appellant would be entitled to claim the DTC “for some of those years” but only requests “for tax years ending in any of the 10 calendar years before the year you make the requests can be considered.” ... On that date, he also filed a separate notice of objection to the Minister’s refusal to accept his T1 Adjustment request. [19] The Minister responded on August 15, 2023, refusing to accept the notice of objection of the assessment on the basis that the Appellant was “objecting to a statue-barred refund” and it could not be accepted “as a valid objection because the issue is not considered part of the assessment of tax, penalties, and interest.” [20] In closing submissions, the Appellant provided a book of authorities and referred to a number of decisions including Canada v. ... The Court would have considered the merits of the application in light of the criteria set out in subsection 166.2(5). ...

., discussed what are direct and what are indirect taxes, also the factors that should be considered and kept in mind in arriving at a conclusion as to the intention of the legislation as to who should bear the tax. ... Act have been considered in many cases, and as Lord Moulton says in Cotton v. ... Windsor [1923] 3 D.L.R. at p. 551, does not conclusively determine the question of ultra vires or intra vires raised in this proceeding, because (a) the statute considered by Orde, J., has been since amended, (b) the Supreme Court of Canada, in dismissing the appeal from the judgment pronounced by Orde, J., expressly refrained from pronouncing upon the question, being of the opinion that in the action then before the Court the appellant McLeod had no status to question the constitutional validity of the legislation. (3) That, although the assessment in 1923 is in respect of income received in 1922 (see see. 11(2)), yet such income was assessable in 1923. ...

I do not think that the patrons of the beer licensees, who expect to be treated, could be seriously considered as an advertising or sales promotion medium, and one might safely say that no brewer’s business could long survive on any patronage derived from those who look to be served with free beer. ... It is difficult to understand why it is considered necessary for brewers to make gifts of beer to the patrons of beer licensees, and one cannot but wonder why they do not agree among themselves to refrain from the practice. ... I am inclined also to think that the expenditures made by the appellant cannot be considered a necessary business expense because of the provisions of the Government Liquor Control Act of Manitoba, if indeed they are not expressly or impliedly forbidden by that Act, the sale of beer is so controlled and regulated that expenditures for treating would seem altogether unnecessary because everybody concerned with the trade is exactly upon the same footing; everything in the nature of advertising is severely limited, and no doubt that was deliberately done as a matter of public policy, in connection with this particular trade. ...

For the reasons stated in the Spruce Falls case (which need not be repeated here but may be considered as part of my reasons for judgment in this case), I hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of para. ... It may well be as suggested by counsel for the appellant that logs when “barked” are still logs: but in view of the limitations mentioned, I think that item of cost should be excluded entirely from the computation, “barking” being considered as part of the manufacturing:or processing. ... I considered that submission in the Spruce Falls case and for the reasons given in that case I must reject it. ...

That amount should therefore not be considered to modify the net worth calculation done by the Minister. [18] Since I have not accepted the appellant’s testimony on this point, I do not need to consider the respondent’s objection to the evidence. ... 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. [5] [27] I find that in this case, it is obvious that there is a connection between the money the appellant received from his union and the loss of his employment. ... The request contained all the facts considered by the Minister in the calculation of the taxpayer’s income using the net worth method. ...

Verrico was advised that the request, as it related to the 2007-2011 tax years, could not be considered because it had been received more than ten years after the end of the tax years in issue. ... The Respondent submits that where a taxpayer makes reasonable inquiries but is misinformed, an error may be considered reasonable. [23] The Respondent submits that the MD reasonably concluded that the excess contributions in issue were not due to a reasonable error, because (1) the Applicant was warned of excess contributions in his NOAs as early as 2009; (2) many of his NOAs showed that he had excess RRSP contributions; (3) the CRA cannot be held responsible for erroneous RRSP information in NOAs where RRSP contributions are not reported or returns are filed late; (4) the Applicant is responsible for the errors made by third parties acting on his behalf; (5) the Applicant is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the information he provides on his tax return; and (6) the Applicant did not make withdrawals to eliminate excess contributions until 2019. [24] The Respondent notes that while the over contribution was perhaps not intentional, the absence of clear evidence to explain the error, the time periods involved, the apparent lack of knowledge of RRSP contribution rules, and the failure to withdraw the excess contributions are all factors that were addressed by the MD and justify the decision reached. ... However, the Respondent chose not to file evidence that would assist the Court in understanding the record; one of the well recognized exceptions to the general rule that fresh evidence is not to be considered on judicial review. ...

Decision under Review [8] By letter dated March 15, 2023, the CRA Agent assigned to the Further Second Review informed the Applicant that she was not eligible for the CERB, because she had not established that she met the requirements related to the cap on income during the applicable payment periods. [9] This CRA Agent considered the following in coming to this Decision: The procedure document that instructs CRA Agents on how to determine eligibility for the CERB; The relevant agency-wide Notepad Entries; The Case Specific Notepad Entries; The disclosure provided by the Applicant in support of her earlier reviews; The Applicant’s income and the deductions from income for the 2018 to 2020 taxation years as recorded on the CRA’s computer system; The Applicant’s T1 data summary for 2008 to 2022 taxation years as recorded on the CRA’s computer system; The Applicant’s Eligibility Overview as recorded on the CRA’s computer system; and The phone script used by CRA Agents when callers ask what types of documents are required to support eligibility. [10] Further to what the Applicant had indicated on the phone, the CRA Agent did not receive documentation from the Applicant as to her income for the months that she received the CERB. [11] In the Further Second Review Report, which forms part of the reasons (Aryan v. ... I take it that these were the documents that the Applicant refused to submit to the Agent, as she preferred to provide them directly to the Court: a) A Business Income Spreadsheet for 2020 (Exhibit C); b) A Business Income Spreadsheet for 2021 (Exhibit F); c) An internet invoice (Exhibit H); d) Utility invoices for Hydro and Reliance Insurance (Exhibits I & J); and e) A phone bill (Exhibit K); and f) An Amazon receipt for toys purchased (Exhibit L). [16] It is well established that the evidence considered in applications for judicial review is generally limited to the documentation that was before the administrative decision-maker: Maltais v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 817 at para 21. ... As such, the Applicant’s arguments to this Court amount to a request that I reweigh the evidence already considered by the decision-maker. ...