Search - consideration

Treaty to impose tax on the royalty payments received by RBC and, in particular, whether they fell within the portion of the definition of “immovable property” in Art. 6(2) (the “fifth limb”) that referred to "rights to variable or fixed payments as consideration for the working of, or the right to work, mineral deposits, sources and other natural resources". ... Sulpetro has the latter but not the former. … Lady Rose went on to find that even If the rights of the royalty payer (now, BP) had amounted to a right to work the field, nonetheless RBC's right to royalty payments from BP did not amount to a right to "consideration for" such right to work. ... Furthermore, it was only payments made in return for the first grant of the rights by the landowner that fall within the definition of "consideration for" the right to work, so that payments made for the assignment or transfer of rights conferred on someone by the owner of the rights were not "consideration for" the right to work. ...

Comments of CRA on the effects of this new rule include: Under the new rule, where the (post-May 22, 2022) assignment agreement indicates that a part of the consideration is attributable to the reimbursement of a deposit paid by the assignor to the builder under the subject purchase and sale agreement, that deposit amount is excluded from the taxable amount of the assignment – whereas under the old regime, if the assignment was taxable, the total consideration for the assignment- including any portion referable to the assignment of the deposit- was taxable. Given that the amount of the new housing rebate is based on the total consideration for the taxable supply of the house, including any consideration paid by an assignee for a taxable assignment sale of an agreement to purchase the house from the builder (but excluding the amount attributable to a deposit assignment), the new rule will affect the Ontario or federal new housing rebate amounts. As only one new housing rebate application can be made for each new house, and the builder (“Builder A”) does not receive the consideration for the assignment of the purchase contract to the assignee: [T]he assignee purchaser may want to file their new housing rebate application directly with the CRA rather than through Builder A. ...

More precisely, the Manager agreed to relinquish its receipt of that X% of its fees, and the Funds agreed to pay the same percentage amounts to a special purpose non-resident Citibank-formed vehicle (“Funding Corp”) in consideration for Funding Corp paying the brokerage commissions. ... This turned principally on whether this consideration paid by the Funds to Funding Corp was tainted under para. ... Therefore, the consideration paid by the Funds to Funding Corp was tainted as Funding Corp was providing a management service. ...

He argued that since he had established that around ¼ of the payments received by him as cheques from a corporation, with which he did not deal at arm’s length, properly reimbursed him for business expenses, he had demolished the Minister’s “exact” assumption made in assessing him under s. 160 that the taxpayer had “provided no consideration for the cheques.” In rejecting this position, Monaghan JA stated that the taxpayer “places far too much emphasis on the word ‘exact’ and gives insufficient weight to the word ‘demolish’ in … Hickman. ” and further stated that “establishing some consideration for the cheques is not sufficient to demolish the Minister’s assumption,” noting in this regard that the “purpose of pleading the assumption is to provide the appellant with notice of the case the appellant has to meet” and here, the taxpayer knew that, in the context of a s. 160 assessment, he needed to establish that he had provided fair market consideration for the cheques, “not merely some consideration.” ...

Before agreeing with the position of the Minister that the “gratuity” was part of the consideration for the supply under the contract, Bocock J referred inter alia to U.K jurisprudence that [V]oluntary gratuities are not subject to VAT because voluntary gratuities are: ‘[N]o part of the contract that the customer should pay a charge for service ….’ ... The almost mandatory tip is enforceable by operation of contract law whereas a voluntary tip is not “consideration” because it is not payable by operation of law…. ... The King, 2022 TCC 141 under ETA – 123(1) – consideration. ...

7 May 2018- 12:11am CRA confirms that there is no requirement on a supplier to refund GST/HST on an excess charge Email this Content ETA s. 232(2) provides that where a supplier has charged GST/HST on consideration that is subsequently reduced, the supplier “may” then refund the GST/HST it charged on the excess consideration. ... As such, it is at the discretion of the [supplier] whether to refund the GST on the reduction in consideration. ...

In the first case, the the supply of recyclable scrap metal is made for consideration if the person acquiring it, namely a demolition company, attributes a value to that supply which it takes into account in the calculation of the price quoted for carrying out the demolition works with the consideration it received for its demolition work effectively being grossed up by this estimated amount. ... A similar gross up of consideration for reciprocal supplies might occur under ETA s. 153(1). ... Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö, [2019] EUECJ C-410/17 (10 January 2019) European Court of Justice (9 th Chamber) under ETA s. 123(1)- consideration. ...

17 September 2018- 11:18pm CRA confirms that it is possible to structure a P3 project so as to defer the applicability of GST/HST until revenues are ascertained Email this Content Typically, P3 project construction costs for a hospital, bridge etc. are intended for ITA purposes to be viewed as consideration for the grant of a concession or licence (a Class 14 property) by the public authority to the private operating company to enter onto the premises to operate it and earn a monthly operating fee (see e.g., 2006-0218781R3). On the ETA side, CRA instead views the consideration for the incurring of the construction costs as being included in the subsequent monthly amounts payable by the authority. Provided that the amount of such consideration is not yet ascertainable, GST/HST is not triggered (one month after substantial completion) under ETA s. 168(3)(c) on the value of the supply made to the public authority by virtue of the supply of the hospital etc. and is deferred under s. 168(6) until the monthly amounts become ascertainable. ...

., the distribution restriction in s. 74.4(4) was not complied with), the preferred shares received on the refreeze will be excluded consideration that do not reduce the “outstanding amount” (as determined under s. 74.4(3)) on which the deemed interest benefit is computed under s. 74.4(2). If the refrozen preferred shares are redeemed for cash consideration, that consideration will reduce the outstanding amount, but only to the extent of the fair market value of those shares. ...

10 August 2021- 1:55am CRA position accommodating extracting cash on an amalgamation may facilitate surplus stripping Email this Content 2018-0785921E5 and 2017-0696821E5 indicate that where there is a distribution of cash and shares to shareholders of predecessor corporations pursuant to an amalgamation, the conditions of s. 87(1)(c) will be met, while the receipt of the non-share consideration will preclude s. 87(4) from applying, so that such shareholders will realize a capital gain or loss based on the value of the shares and cash received from Amalco. This suggests that surplus of a corporation can be extracted on its amalgamation as cash or other non-share consideration. S. 84(2) risk can be minimized by continuing to operate the businesses of the predecessors and taking the non-share consideration as a note that is drawn down over time. ...