Search - consideration

Erdmann, then his spouse, for less than fair market value consideration. ...

Subsection 160(1) reads as follows: 160. (1) Lorsqu"une personne a, depuis le 1 er mai 1951, transféré des biens, directement ou indirectement, au moyen d"une fiducie ou de toute autre façon,      a) à son conjoint ou à une personne devenue depuis son conjoint,      b) à une personne qui était âgée de moins de 18 ans, ou      c) à une personne avec laquelle elle avait un lien de dépendance, les règles suivantes s"appliquent:      d) le bénéficiaire et l"auteur du transfert sont conjointement et solidairement responsables du paiement d"une partie de l"impôt de l"auteur du transfert en vertu de la présente Partie pour chaque année d"imposition, égale à l"excédent de l"impôt pour l"année sur ce que cet impôt aurait été sans l"application des articles 74 à 75.1 à l"égard de tout revenu tiré des biens ainsi transférés ou des biens y substitués ou à l"égard de tout gain tiré de la disposition de tels biens, et      e) le bénéficiaire et l"auteur du transfert sont conjointement et solidairement responsables du paiement en vertu de la présente loi d"un montant égal au moins élevé des deux montants suivants:          (i) la fraction, si fraction il y a, de la juste valeur marchande des biens à la date du transfert qui est en sus de la juste valeur marchande à cette date de la contrepartie donnée pour le bien, et          (ii) le total des montants donc chacun représente un montant que l"auteur du transfert doit payer en vertu de la présente loi au cours de l"année d"imposition dans laquelle les biens ont été transférés ou d"une année d"imposition antérieure ou pour une de ces parties, mais aucune disposition du présent paragraphe n"est réputée limiter la responsabilité de l"auteur du transfert en vertu de toute autre disposition de la présente loi. 160. (1) Where a person has, on or after the l st day of May, 1951, transferred property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, to      (a) his spouse or a person who has since become his spouse,      (b) a person who was under 18 years of age, or      (c) a person with whom he was not dealing at arm"s length, the following rules apply:      (d) the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay a part of the transferor"s tax under this Part for each taxation year equal to the amount by which the tax for the year is greater than it would have been if it were not for the operation of sections 74 to 75.1, in respect of any income from, or gain from the disposition of, the property so transferred or property substituted therefor, and      (e) the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay under this Act an amount equal to the lesser of      (i) the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at the time it was transferred exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given for the property, and      (ii) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is an amount that the transferor is liable to pay under this Act in or in respect of the taxation year in which the property was transferred or any preceding taxation year, but nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to limit the liability of the transferor under any other provision of this Act. [3]      Noting the care taken by Parliament to employ more than once the broadest possible terms in its introductory words, no doubt for the purpose of giving its rule a full extension " "either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever" " we have no difficulty in concluding that the provision applies once the tax debtor does the act that gives rise to the process by which his property will ultimately end up in the patrimony of any of these persons with whom he has a non-arm"s length relationship. ...

     (2)      Whether the applicant was required to collect and account for GST in the amount of $299.83 on the consideration he received for supplies he made during the course of his property management activities. [2]      The Tax Court Judge disallowed the claim for input tax credits because he concluded that in order to qualify, the taxpayer must carry on a "commercial activity" and that in order to do so the taxpayer must have had a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

The appellant has not demonstrated to us that the learned Tax Court Judge erred in his appreciation of the facts or in his application of the law to those facts. [7]      Upon a realistic consideration of the whole of the appellant's activities, it is clear to us that the appellant was, for the 1985 and 1988 taxation years, in the business of granting to its cable customers licenses to exhibit motion pictures to their subscribers for viewing in private and not selling or leasing them. ...

Freeland 100,000 shares, for which no consideration was given and no payment was even claimed. [3]      His tax returns were filed by an accountant to whom he told that he had paid 10 cents a share while he never mentioned that he was an employee of the transfer agent, National Trust, which was dealing with Punters. [4]      Following an investigation, the Minister concluded that the Appellant had acquired the shares in return for services rendered and that, by his statement concerning the price paid as well as by the non disclosure of his business connection with National Trust and Punters, he had caused his accountant to make, in his tax returns, representations which were erroneous. [5]      The Appellant claims that the first finding of the Tax Court judge is based on a misinterpretation of subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) and is not substantiated by evidence sufficient to satisfy the burden imposed upon the Minister in that regard. ...

In its decision the Tribunal said that it was "common ground" that the heating pads were not within the phrase "or the like" and the Tribunal gave no further consideration to the matter in its reasons. ...

The gist of this argument was that the impugned decision in the instant case could be piggybacked on the other decision which affected two of the same parties, which would have delayed the cutoff date of the ninety day limitation in relation to the May decision until June 1st. [4]      After careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that it was impossible to give effect to counsel"s suggestion without distorting the limitations in the Act. ...

Nor do we understand the judge"s analysis in finding, first, that this was employment within the meaning of paragraph 3(1)(a), 1 and that in two of the cases it should be excepted under subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii). 2 The consequences for the respondent and the four shareholders who were personally involved are too serious for the issue to be decided without more thorough consideration. [2]      The Attorney General of Canada"s application sought review of only that part of the decision which affected the two excepted shareholders, which is understandable since the Minister"s finding with respect to the other part was upheld. ...

As consideration for the agreement Helvetia issued a cheque for $20,000.00 to the appellant, as a performance bond. ...

]                                   (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act out of which an appeal arises, the Court, in hearing an appeal referred to in section 18, is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in conducting a hearing for the purposes of that Act, and all appeals referred to in section 18 shall be dealt with by the Court as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit ...