Search - considered

They must be considered in the light of the basic premises that everyone must have a fiscal residence somewhere and that it is quite possible for an individual to be simultaneously resident in more than one place for tax purposes ...   [14]         The Appellant made the comment that it would be unfair to request repayment of these Benefits if they are considered by the Minister to have been paid to her in error. ...

      [8]                For the reasons that follow, I have decided that Hofmann Plastics did not discharge its duty to establish on a balance of probabilities that the opportunity to save time and money and arrive at a just determination of the proceeding on its merits is such that it warrants a derogation from the general principle to the effect that all issues raised in a proceeding should be considered together ... I therefore understand that that they would never be considered by the court as admissible deductions in accounting for profits.   13.               ...

ANALYSIS [23]      In its letter of September 18, 1997, the applicant asked Revenue "for advance rulings" for each of the four products that were enclosed in prototype form. [24]      In its letter of reply dated October 7, 1997, Revenue, after stating that it had examined the samples and considered the definitions of the Excise Act, concluded as follows:      Therefore, it clearly appears that for purposes of the Excise Act, Products A and B meet the definition of a "tobacco stick" while Products C and D are "cigarettes". ... He added that Revenue would closely monitor the manner in which tobacco sticks are consumed and if it becomes evident that persons are effectively smoking these sticks without affixing the filter cover, the Department would then be justified in reversing the ruling and requiring that these products be taxed at the same rate as fully manufactured cigarettes. [26]      Clearly, both the applicant and Revenue considered the matter to be an advance ruling based on a prototype submitted by the applicant. ...

The Agency carefully considered all of the facts before the decision maker, and the guidelines formulated to assist in the exercise of the Minister's discretion under subsection 152(4.2) of the Act were considered before discretion was exercised to decline the relief sought by the Applicant. ...

The applicant agreed to a reassessment of its taxes which would allow it to offset the amount, now considered income, against losses sustained in the June 30 th, 1995 and June 30 th, 1996 year ends.         ... Allard dismissed the applicant's request with the following explanation: I have considered the Agency's position with respect to the fairness provisions and made a thorough and impartial review of the facts and representations that you have submitted to support your request. ...

Une personne morale, une société de personnes ou une association sans personnalité morale se fait représenter par un a vocat dans toute instance, à moins que la Cour, à cause de circonstances particulières, ne l'autorise à se faire représenter par un de ses dirigeants, associés ou membres, selon le cas. [3]         The parties agree that the factors to be considered by the Court in a Rule 120 motion are those set out in Kobetek Systems Ltd. v. ... Disposition [17]       Having considered each of the relevant factors in light of the evidence before me on this motion, I conclude that Mr. ...

Buteau dated January 26, 2005, it is removed from the file and was not considered in the context of this decision, as it contravenes subsection 84(2) of the Rules.                      ...

Thereafter, a review committee considered the matter and recommended that the request for waiver of the filing deadlines be denied. ... There is no question of his making any sort of a representation which could possibly be considered as granting an extension of the delays. ...

Employers are not entitled to subdivide their payrolls into different remitter groups. [9]                A review of the analysis carried out by the respondent discloses that, amongst other factors considered, the respondent looked at the taxpayer's history of compliance problems. [10]            Mandate Erectors then sought a second level review. ... In this regard, Mandate Erectors has not succeeded in persuading me that there was any ambiguity in the information provided to taxpayers by the respondent on this point. [27]            This leaves the argument that it was unreasonable for the respondent to have considered the compliance history of MQM Quality Manufacturing Ltd. in deciding whether or not to exercise its discretion in favour of Mandate Erectors. [28]            The question in this regard is whether the two companies are 'associated', within the meaning of the Income Tax Act. ...

The Requirement properly indicates the name of the taxpayer concerned, refers to the appropriate enabling provision and gives a description of the information required which is sufficient to enable Canada-Israel Securities Ltd. to prepare its response. [10]            Therefore, I see no reason why I should not adopt the reasoning and conclusion of the Federal Court of Appeal in Bisaillon at least in so far as it pertains to the request to provide the correspondence between the late David Nadler and Canada-Israel Securities Ltd. [11]            The applicant could not give the Court any reason or basis on which it should find that there is a serious issue with respect to the fact that the Requirement was issued with respect to a non-resident. [12]            As I have already indicated it in my order relating to other Requirements issued to collect this tax debt (T-993-05 and T-992-05), I have considered the statutory provisions and the scheme of the Act and can think of no reason why a taxpayer could avoid the application of section 231.2 simply by leaving Canada after incurring the tax debt. ... (QL), these stays were not granted simply to protect a right of appeal and those two decisions should not be construed as establishing such a principle. [21]            In fact, there are numerous decisions where stays have been denied in a different context pending the determination of a judicial application or an appeal. [22]            I am satisfied that the applicant has failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm if the requirement to provide correspondence between Dow Dot Corporation and Canada-Israel Securities Ltd. is not stayed. [23]            I must also add that even if I considered that the applicant's alleged irreparable harm with respect to the first request (correspondence with the late David Nadler) is sufficient to satisfy the second criteria of the tripartite test, I would nevertheless deny the stay because I am not satisfied that considering all the circumstances including the fact that the applicant's application for judicial review in respect of that request is in my view frivolous, that the balance of convenience favours the applicant. [24]            I must therefore dismiss the motion with costs.                                                                        ...