Search - consideration

“Proceeds” for purposes of computing its mining profits under the Mining Tax Act (Ontario) referenced: (a) consideration received from the output of a mine; (b) consideration from hedging; and (c) consideration from future sales or forward sales of the output of the mine That Act in relevant part defined “hedging” as including “the fixing of a price for output of a mine before delivery by means of a forward sale or a futures contract on a recognized commodity exchange.” (LeBel J noted, at para. 51, that in this context “’all consideration from hedging” must necessarily refer to a net concept.”) ... Words and Phrases consideration ...

However, it was precluded by statute from going back more than three years with its refund claims – but there was no such time limitation where a repayment of VAT was claimed based on there being “a decrease in consideration for a supply.” Before rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that its change in calculating the consideration for its supplies involved a “decrease in consideration,” so that it could go back more than three years, Lord Legatt stated (at para. 30) that it was “clear that there can be only one correct method of calculating the taxable element of fees charged to customers for playing cash bingo and … this was the session by session method and not the game by game method.” Since there was only one correct method, on this basis as well the taxpayer’s claim that its switch in method entailed a decrease in the consideration payable by it foundered. ...

In reversing the decision below, and finding that the exemption applied, Marcotte JCA noted that “sale” was broadly defined in s. 2(9) of the RSTA to include “any other contract whereby, for a price or other consideration, a person delivers or binds himself to deliver, to another, movable property.” After quoting Waddams, The law of contracts, as to the meaning of “consideration” under the common law, she stated (at para. 57, TaxInterpretations translation): In this case, by transferring its environmental obligations to the Receivers, the Appellant relieved itself of various environmental obligations or liabilities. In my view, this relief conferred a benefit on the Appellant and … constituted valuable consideration that may be characterized as "any other consideration" within the meaning of section 2(9) of the RSTA. ...

Perram and Jackman JJ stated (at para. 11) that “where parties to a conveyance have agreed the purchase price for a transfer on sale then the consideration for the transfer is that agreed price” and that the “ordinary meaning of the language used by the parties [in the EBA] … suggests that what was to be paid by the Bottler to PepsiCo/SVC or their nominated seller was a price being paid for the concentrate and therefore ‘as consideration for’ the sale of the concentrate” (para. 13). ... Thus, “the payments made by the Bottler to the Seller did not include an element which was a royalty for the use of the trade marks (since the payments were not in consideration for the right to use the trade marks)” (para. 37), so that no withholding tax could be imposed by the Commissioner on such consideration. ... It follows … that the amounts provided for by the EBAs as the prices for units of concentrate were partly amounts in consideration for the use of the trade marks which the Bottler was licensed to use. ...

The fines were pure fines rather than consideration for parking services. ... C Miller J stated (at para. 26): I have found that the contractual terms of the contract between a non‑paying driver and Simon Fraser University do not provide for consideration for a parking spot, but an agreement by the non-paying driver to run the risk of having to pay a fine. There is not an intention to breach an agreement to pay for the taxable supply of parking; the agreement is not to pay consideration for the supply of the parking spot: the agreement is basically, if I get caught I pay a fine. ...

This sum instead was stated to be paid to them in consideration for their entering into a non-competition agreement with the purchaser. $1,050,000 paid by the taxpayers to the purchaser was stipulated as consideration for the purchaser converting the purchase arrangement to a share purchase. ... In finding that the the full $13,750,000 received was proceeds of disposition of the taxpayers' shares, Favreau J referred (at para. 49) to the Glegg principle that: there is no need to turn to paragraph 68(a)...where the entire amount of consideration received or receivable by a taxpayer from a person can reasonably be regarded as consideration for the disposition of a particular property, namely the shares sold.... ...

Canada, 2012 FCA 76, aff'g 2011 DTC 1343 [at 1917], 2011 TCC 318-- summary under Subsection 84.1(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 84.1- Subsection 84.1(1) fees borne by transferee were "consideration" The taxpayer, a family trust, made a non-arm's-length sale of shares to a numbered corporation ("4041763 or "404") for a promissory note of approximately $2.6 million. 404 then immediately sold the shares at arm's length to a third party ("Keolis") for approximately $2.8 million. ... Archambault J. affirmed the Minister's position that the amount of these professional fees was "consideration" received by the taxpayer. ... Archambault J. stated (at para. 16): I accept the definition of consideration laid down in Currie and referred to by Judge Lamarre in Republic National Bank, above, and the definition in Black's Law Dictionary, according to which "consideration" can encompass "[t]he inducement to a contract... ...

He further found that “there has been an evolution in the doctrine of consideration in the context of contract modifications,” so that now “when parties to a contract agree to vary its terms, the variation should be enforceable without fresh consideration, absent duress, unconscionability, or other public policy concerns” (para. 57). ... In rejecting the taxpayers' alternative argument that they had provided consideration for the dividend, he stated (at para. 67): The jurisprudence is conclusive that contributions made to a company by its shareholders do not constitute consideration for the payment of dividends by the company to those shareholders. ...

Under that agreement for the provision of the Subject Service, it was the employee or family member who was liable to pay the consideration for that service. ... However, the direct-billing arrangement did not negate or vitiate (although it satisfied) the employee’s or family member’s liability under the agreement to pay that consideration. ... Accordingly, as the employee or family member was the person liable, under the agreement for the supply of the Subject Service, to pay the consideration for that service, it was the employee or family member (and not Westcoast) who was the recipient of the service. ...

MNR, 59 DTC 1102, [1959] CTC 172 (Ex Ct)-- summary under Computation of Profit Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 9- Computation of Profit considertion paid for land was par value of shares issued The original shareholders of the taxpayer had transferred raw land (which they had valued at $355,000, based on an estimated selling price for building lots minus a 45% discount for estimated expenses) to the taxpayer in consideration for the issue of shares having a par value of $200,000. ... Cameron J. held (p. 1108) that: "The consideration paid by the appellant for the... lots was the par value of the shares issued and nothing more. ... " The cost of the lots was not affected by the contemporaneous transfer of additional land to the taxpayer in consideration for shares, with a view to donating such land to the University of Manitoba in order to enhance the value of the land retained by the taxpayer. ...