Search - considered

This was done because it was considered desirable for the purpose of obtaining a tax advantage in the United States. ... To my mind, this does not indicate an intention that the Corporation should continue the operations in Canada on its own account, nor was it suggested by any witness that it was considered sufficient in order to gain the desired advantage to have the Corporation keep that business as its own and have it carried on through an agent in Canada. ... These facts, while not necessarily inconsistent with an intention that the appellant should be a mere agent or that the business to be carried on by it should continue to belong to the Corporation, strike me as indicating that the intention was that the business thereafter would be that of the appellant itself and in this context may be considered the fact that no resolution was ever passed by the Corporation to appoint the appellant its agent or by the appellant to accept appointment as such an agent, nor was any agency agreement made between them. ...

In addition, he considered the low prices for beef in 1977 and the new types of crops which were coming out and decided that a cash crop operation would be more profitable even with his limited resources. ... The Queen, [1986] 2 C.T.C. 382; 86 D.T.C. 6504, Madame Justice Reed considered the case of a horse farmer who had been forced by market conditions to switch to cattle. ... Even if the losses experienced during the years in question could be considered "start-up costs", there is authority that 10 or even 15 years may not be excessive for an operation to experience such costs, providing the operation is basically sound. ...

Counsel for the respondent advised the Court that the fair market value of the appellants' shares in the Numbered Company as at June 25, 1986 was no less than $1 million and is no longer considered by the respondent to be $2.6 million as assumed on assessment. ... He was unable to say how this would be done or whether the appellants had ever considered doing it, and he gave no evidence respecting its overall tax consequences. ... Jung had addressed the matter, had noted the historical sales and earnings of the company, had considered the effects of the 1984 fire and had felt at the time the value amount of $500,000 would be reasonable. ...

For the purposes of this section and sections 111 and 127, a taxpayer who is a member of a partnership at a particular time is a limited partner of that partnership at that time if his partnership interest is not an exempt interest at that time (within the meaning assigned by subsection (2.5)) and if, at that time or within three years after that time, (a)        by operation of any law which governs the partnership arrangement, the liability of the taxpayer in his capacity as a member of the partnership, is limited; (b)        the taxpayer or a person with whom the taxpayer does not deal at arm's length is entitled to receive an amount or obtain a benefit that would be described in paragraph (2.2)(d) if it were read without reference to subparagraphs (ii) and (vi) thereof; (c)         one of the reasons for the existence of the taxpayer who owns the interest (i)          may reasonably be considered to be to limit the liability of any other person with respect to that interest, and (ii)         may not reasonably be considered to be to permit any person who has an interest in the taxpayer to carry on his business (other than an investment business) in the most effective manner; or             (d)         there is an agreement or other arrangement for the disposition of an interest in the partnership and one of the main reasons for the agreement or arrangement may reasonably be considered to be to attempt to avoid the application of this subsection to the taxpayer. [My emphasis.] [21]     It is useful to refer once again to the words of Chief Justice Garon in McKeown, which are still relevant: 406      Here, in view of the facts of this case, it seems to me that only the application of paragraph 96(2.4)(b) need be considered. ... Where, in a particular taxation year of a taxpayer who is a member of a partnership, an amount would, if the partnership were a person and its fiscal period were its taxation year, be determined in respect of the partnership, for its taxation year ending in that particular taxation year, under paragraph (a), (b) or (e.1) of the definition "investment tax credit" in subsection (9), if (a)      Paragraph (a) of that definition were read without reference to subparagraph (iii) thereof, and (b)      in the case of a taxpayer who is a specified member of the partnership in the taxation year of the partnership, (i) paragraph (a) of that definition were read without reference to subparagraph (ii) thereof... the portion of that amount that may reasonably be considered to be the taxpayer's share thereof shall be added in computing the investment tax credit of the taxpayer at the end of that particular taxation year. ...

The general area of what is comprehended in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph 11(1)(cb) is I think indicated by the scope of what is expressly excluded by subparagraphs (iii) and (iv) for the fact that it was considered expedient to expressly exclude commissions and bonuses and payments as or on account of principal or interest, to my mind, shows that what is referred to as “an expense incurred in the year” in the course of issuing or selling shares or borrowing money for the purpose referred to is capable of embracing a broad class of expenditures for such purposes. ... In his reasons for judgment, Mr Justice Thurlow referring to subparagraph 11 (1)(cb)(ii) outlines the fact that: This provision has been considered In a number of cases and has received in general a strict and in one case what might be regarded as a narrow construction. ... Even if, in a very broad sense, they could be considered to have been made or incurred for that purpose, they, having regard to their use in connection with the erection of a capital asset, namely an Office building, are amounts of a capital nature, the deduction of which is prohibited by paragraph 12(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. ...

Ollu’s salary was paid by Dixie and he was considered to be an employee of Dixie. ... The payments made by the taxpayer could not be considered as a separate operation isolated from the initial venture and had none of the characteristics of a regular loan. ... There is not a scintilla of evidence that Dixie considered the business of Noonday U.K., or its assets or liabilities, as its own. ...

Taylor and his children, which was considered to be excessive, and other minor sums to obtain a net standardized profit, which was, in the witness's opinion, required by the valuation techniques. ... The data he considered related to operations for the years 1977 to 1981. ... Taylor and his children for 1977, of $11,332 for 1978, $10,397 for 1979, $20,920 for 1980 and $165,971 for 1981, which he considered to be excessive, and a number of other minor corrections to obtain a realistic return. ...

However, it was referenced by several judges in considering the scope of the words “arranging for” in the case law considered below ... Bowie J. considered the scope of paragraph (l) in Royal Bank of Canada v. ... She appears to have considered the two activities together.   [39]         In the case at bar, the causal event for the service is the customer’s choice to use the machine. ...

[Emphasis added.] [20]          Subsection 256(5.1) of the Act defines the phrase "controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever" as follows:   Control in fact   For the purposes of this Act, where the expression "controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever," is used, a corporation shall be considered to be so controlled by another corporation, person or group of persons (in this subsection referred to as the "controller") at any time where, at that time, the controller has any direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of the corporation, except that, where the corporation and the controller are dealing with each other at arm's length and the influence is derived from a franchise, licence, lease, distribution, supply or management agreement or other similar agreement or arrangement, the main purpose of which is to govern the relationship between the corporation and the controller regarding the manner in which a business carried on by the corporation is to be conducted, the corporation shall not be considered to be controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by the controller by reason only of that agreement or arrangement.                                                                                         ... Not only is it not an irrevocable proxy, it is also a type of document that, according to Iacobucci J., is "not generally to be considered". ... Côté's intervention, at the very least, would still be needed in order for those documents to be considered a unanimous shareholder agreement within the meaning of the CBCA. [5] Only the three members of the Fuchs family signed these documents. ...

The fact that a lienholder may be considered a purchaser for the purposes of registration legislation does not convert that lienholder into an owner. ... In this context, the fact that an assignment may be considered to be absolute does not take it out of the definition of security interest. ... The nature of the interest held by the bank, even if considered to be an absolute assignment, cannot be divorced from the circumstances in which it arose. ...