Search - considered

Ellis would be paid $125,000.00 per year, which he testified was about one half of the amount that could be considered appropriate remuneration for the position. ... Nothing in the evidence suggests that any of these should be considered to be trading transactions rather than investments.   ... By April 2000, his salary had been doubled to $250,000 per annum, which he considered to be appropriate remuneration for his position. ...

  [16]          The Appellant submits that the accountants Kassis and Gervais considered the amounts paid to be income. [1]   [17]          The Appellant stated that the amounts paid were considered income for the transferring accountants. ...   [41]          As a criterion for determining whether a client list is a current expenditure or a capital expenditure, the Federal Court of Appeal relied on the decision in Johns‑Manville Canada, [6] which expounded on the question of whether a payment should be considered a current or capital expenditure ... Martin considered the expenses to be capital in nature (Exhibit I‑1, tab 5) and that his intention was to acquire the [TRANSLATION] "purchased" clientele of the firms (Exhibit I‑1, tab 7). ...

The terminology used by the taxpayer and his accountant at times could lead to some confusion, but in one sense a debt which becomes bad may also be considered a "loan" of money. ... No such terms or conditions were attached to the unpaid management fees because they were not considered to be a loan, but were treated as an account receivable. ... Not all sums paid to a person who happens to be a director of a company will automatically be considered income from that office. ...

The purchase price proposed by Pat Carson Bulldozing Limited was considered grossly inadequate by Mr. and Mrs. ... The transaction lacked the degree of interconnection and interdependence required by the relevant jurisprudence to be considered a series of transactions. [5]            In 454538 Ontario Limited and 454539 Ontario Limited v. ... He also considered the purpose of the legislation, and said: [5]... This subsection is an anti-avoidance provision designed to prevent an artificial or undue reduction of the capital gain that a taxpayer would have realized if he had simply sold his shares at their fair market value....                 ...

In that respect, it should be noted that the first recital in the agreement dated as of October 4, 1967, between the appellant and his then employer, The British American Oil Company Limited, states that the Company had established “an Incentive (a) he had no income other than (i) incomes from the duties of offices and employments performed 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. ... In this case, the relevant provision of Division D is subparagraph 115(1)(a)(i), which reads: 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 (a) he had no income other than (i) incomes from the duties of offices and employments performed 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. ... Subparagraph 115(1)(a)(i), when considered together with paragraph 2(3)(a), has the effect, as I read it, of providing that the appellant’s taxable income, earned in Canada, for his 1973 taxation year was the amount of his income for the year that would be determined under section 3 of the Act if, but only if, he had no income other than income from the duties of his employment performed in Canada in 1973 or in a previous year. ...

This was considered to be fair market value. This value has not been challenged by the respondent. 2.              ... He seemed content to take all of the other subsequent transactions at their face value and use them to justify his treatment of the first transaction as an avoidance transaction without a consequential recharacterization of the tax consequences of the other transactions. [34]          The operation of subsection 245(2) is excluded by subsection 245(4):                 For greater certainty, subsection (2) does not apply to a transaction where it may reasonably be considered that the transaction would not result directly or indirectly in a misuse of the provisions of this Act or an abuse having regard to the provisions of this Act, other than this section, read as whole. [35]          The statement by the assessor that The tax benefit is the indirect extraction of $500,000 by Dennis from GBC LTD. without any tax consequences. is wrong on several counts. ... It conceives the primary commercial objective of disposing of the cement manufacturing assets to Lafarge as subordinate to the means of achieving that end in a manner that is tax effective. [37]          I do not think these transactions are avoidance transactions because I think that they may reasonably (indeed, unquestionably) be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. [38]          As was said in Jabs Construction Limited v. ...

Justice Archambault recognized that in the common law a director must consent either explicitly or implicitly in order to be considered a director. ... It is not sufficient that a person sign cheques for a corporation himself to be considered a de facto director. ... The test of de facto directors should be considered only in cases where a person is representing him or herself as a director. ...

If none of this can be established, the appellant will be considered to have been a resident of the US by reason of his American citizenship.     ... In this case also all stays made in a State must be considered without it being necessary to ascertain the reasons for them.   19.       ... Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Commentary to Article IV(2) illustrate the context in which the tie-breaker rules are to be considered:   9. ...

As the intention was that the mark-up be considered a “license fee” in the United States, consistency would require that the legal form relied on in the United States also prevail in Canada. ... For purposes of clarity it will be recalled that it is couched in the following terms:...which Mark-Up shall be deemed and considered a license fee charged for the license granted by the Franchise Agreement to Franchisee to use the Proprietary Marks in connection with Franchisee’s operation of an Entré Computer Center at the Center Location. [24] There is uncontradicted evidence as to why this deeming clause was inserted into the amendment to the franchise agreement: it was in order to develop a potential line of defence against possible liability under the Robinson Patman Act. ... The use of the deeming provision must be considered to be an attempt to distort the reality of the relationship between the parties and should not, as such, be given any legal effect, just as it should not in the circumstances attract any adverse tax consequences. ...

Bad debts for 1991 were $115,483, an amount that the appellant considered “high”. ... As long as the client was still a client of the firm and not yet bankrupt, his or her debt was not considered to be a bad debt according to the firm. These were the two criteria considered by the firm even though, as Mr. ...