Search - consideration

The Queen, 2021 TCC 24-- summary under Subsection 160(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 160- Subsection 160(1) s. 160 did not apply to a sale of companies holding cash sales proceeds to a purchaser who purported to eliminate the tax liability Each of the five corporate taxpayers participated in the following transactions in order to increase their after-tax return from a sale of farmland in Brampton owned by five general partnerships, each owned as to 99.99% by the respective taxpayers: each taxpayer transferred its partnership interest to a newly-incorporated subsidiary on a s. 85(1) rollover basis in consideration for common shares; in January 2006, the partnerships closed the sale of the farmland with, in some cases, the proceeds being lent to the applicable taxpayer or a parent thereof following the May 31 year end of the general partnerships, the sales proceeds were distributed to the respective subsidiaries on December 28, the stated capital of the common shares held by each taxpayer in its subsidiary was increased to an amount approximating the expected sale price of the shares in the subsidiary in order to increase the ACB of those shares by the same amount; on December 29, the taxpayers entered into a share put agreement with a third party (“WTC”) entitling each taxpayer to put the shares of its subsidiary to WTC for a price equaling the after-tax value of the subsidiary plus 46% of the tax liability of the subsidiary resulting from the allocation by the general partnership to the subsidiary of the income from the sale of the farmland; on December 29, each director and officer of the subsidiary resigned and was replaced by a nominee of WTC; on December 31, each taxpayer exercised the put and closed the sale of the shares of the subsidiary to WTC, with WTC using the cash or receivables in the subsidiary (the “Property”) to discharge the payment of the purchase price immediately after the transfer of the purchased shares. ... In this regard, Owen J stated (at paras. 209-210): [I]n my view the words “consideration given for the property”, when read in the context of the entire subsection, can only mean consideration given by the transferee for the property regardless of who receives that consideration. … Subsection 160(1) is imposing a liability on the transferee for the transferor’s liability under the ITA. This can only be done in a fair and reasonable manner if the transferee receives credit for the consideration given for the property that triggers the liability. … ...

The lead taxpayer in this case took the position that the Waivers were not enforceable because a) there was no valid consideration exchanged for the taxpayer’s promise; b) the CRA created conditions whereby the taxpayer’s consent was not fully informed; and c) the Waivers were obtained by way of undue pressure brought to bear on the taxpayer by the CRA. ... Alan & Company Limited v El Nasr Export & Import Company, [1972] 2 QB 189, [1972] 2 All ER 127 … held that no consideration needed to be moving from the party which benefits from the waiver. … …If I am in error … that [no] consideration is required, I am of the view that there is good and valid consideration flowing to the Appellant. ...

Article 2 of the Sixth Directive provided: The following shall be subject to [VAT]: the supply of goods or services effected for consideration within the territory of the country by a taxable person acting as such … “Supply of services” was defined as “any transaction which does not constitute a supply of goods….” ... In finding that such provision was indeed precluded, the 7 th Chamber stated (at paras. 21-25): 21 …[A] supply of services is effected ‘for consideration’ within the meaning of Article 2, point 1, of the Sixth Directive, and hence is taxable, only if there is a legal relationship between the provider of the service and the recipient pursuant to which there is reciprocal performance, the remuneration received by the provider of the service constituting the value actually given in return for the service supplied to the recipient. That is the case if there is a direct link between the service supplied and the consideration received …. 22 In the present case, it appears from the documents before the Court that the secondment was carried out on the basis of a legal relationship of a contractual nature between Avir and San Domenico Vetraria. 23 Furthermore, it appears that, in the context of that legal relationship, there was reciprocal performance, namely the secondment of a director from Avir to San Domenico Vetraria, on the one hand, and the payment by San Domenico Vetraria to Avir of the amounts invoiced to it, on the other. 24 The Commission disputes, however, the existence of a direct link between those two services, arguing that, in the absence of a requirement for remuneration higher than the costs borne by Avir, the secondment at issue in the main proceedings did not take place with the aim of receiving consideration. 25 That argument cannot be accepted. ...

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. ...

The Queen, 2020 TCC 56-- summary under Section 10 Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Schedules- Schedule V- Part V- Section 10 law society funding received by CanLII was consideration for taxable supplies of its services The appellant (CanLII) was a not-for-profit corporation that operated an open-access virtual law library. ... The Minister disallowed these ITCs on the basis that CanLII provided its service for no consideration and, therefore, provided an exempt supply pursuant to Sched. ... In finding that CanLII instead was making a taxable supply, so that it was entitled to ITCs, Lamarre ACJ stated (at paras. 39-40): … I note that the definition of “consideration” in [s. 123(1) of] the ETA … states that consideration “includes” any amount that is payable for a supply by operation of law. … Therefore, I do not read the definition as imposing a requirement for an enforceable legal obligation to pay as argued by the respondent. ...

CIBC argued that these fees were (1) consideration for intangible personal property (the Miles) that were supplied by Aeroplan, and (2) that such property was exempted from GST as being a supply of “gift certificates.” ... … [Under the Agreement] [t]he obligation to pay the consideration is linked to the promotional and marketing services to be provided by Aeroplan to CIBC … [and] the other obligations of Aeroplan (which would include issuing Aeroplan Miles to CIBC’s customers) are incidental to the promotional and marketing services. … Just as in Global Cash, the agreement under which the consideration for the supply was paid by CIBC should play a dominant role in determining what was acquired for the amounts that were paid. … The issuance of Aeroplan Miles to CIBC’s customers cannot be elevated to be the predominant supply when such issuance of Aeroplan Miles is not even mentioned in the referral activities for which the consideration was payable. … The legal relationship between CIBC and Aeroplan is defined by the agreement between these two parties. ...

The King, 2024 TCC 93-- summary under Paragraph 160(1)(e) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 160- Subsection 160(1)- Paragraph 160(1)(e) a distribution by a discretionary trust in satisfaction of a capital interest occurred for no consideration for s. 160 purposes The taxpayer was one of nine beneficiaries of a discretionary inter vivos personal trust which ceased to be resident in Canada in 2001. ... After finding that the trust had realized departure tax pursuant to s. 128.1(4)(b) in 2001 and had a tax debt that had amounted to $1.6 million at the end of 2005, Gagnon J confirmed the Crown’s position that the taxpayer had not given consideration to the trust for either distribution (e.g., in exchange for part satisfaction of his capital interest in the trust). In this regard, Gagnon J first noted (at para. 62, TaxInterpretations translation): [I]f one party is enriched and the other impoverished by the same amount, it will be possible to conclude that the party who became richer did not offer equivalent consideration …. ...

Before making more detailed findings that SO was making taxable supplies for consideration to the stewards, D’Arcy J found that SO was entitled to full input tax credits for the HST on its costs (including “administrative” charges from an oversight body), stating (at paras 75, 76, 77, 81 and 82): As discussed in my reasons in the University of Calgary... the purpose of section 141.01 is to clarify the application of subsection 169(1) to GST paid on property or services that are not used directly in the making of a specific supply in a situation where the person is making both taxable and exempt supplies. … I would not expect section 141.01 to deny the input tax credits otherwise determined under subsection 169(1) in the situation where a person is only engaged in commercial activities. …[P]aragraph 141.01(2)(a) deems property and services to have been acquired for consumption or use in the course of a commercial activity of the person, if the property and services were acquired by the person for the purpose of making taxable supplies for consideration. ... In my view, these sections apply to the fact situation before me, since all of the property and services acquired by the Appellant from the Third Party Service Providers either were acquired for the purpose of making taxable supplies for consideration or were consumed or used in the making of taxable supplies for consideration. ...

The consideration for a sale for the most part comprised a "Closing Payment" paid by the purchaser trust out of the proceeds of commercial paper issuances and "Deferred Amounts" representing most of the cash subsequently generated to the trust from the purchased mortgages net of all other outlays. ... After finding that there was a single supply of a financial service by CTM, Bowman ACJ went on to find that if this were not the case, s. 138 or 139 would have applied to deem this result to have occurred, stating (at para. 25) that the above-summarized provisions of the sale agreement "establish conclusively that the consideration for the sale of the mortgages and the servicing of the mortgages was a single consideration." ...

.)-- summary under Section 178 Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 178 In finding that charges of a firm of solicitors for reimbursement of their railway and air fares constituted, on general principles, part of the consideration for the services provided by them to their clients, Bridge J. stated (p. 448): "On the one hand a solicitor (like any other agent) may purchase goods or services for its client, as for instance when paying stamp duty, court fees, or buying, say, a travel ticket to enable the client to travel. ... Naturally no value added tax is payable (if the goods or services in question are themselves exempt or zero-rated) because such payments form no part of the consideration for the solicitor's own services to its client. But on the other hand quite different considerations apply where the goods or services purchased are supplied to the solicitor, as here in the form of travel tickets, to enable him effectively to perform the service supplied to his client... ...