Search - consideration

Finally, it is understood that the municipal valuation cannot be taken into consideration for this property, because it is a gross valuation and in addition, in this particular case, no service or improvement on the land, and so forth, is considered in this case. ... In the case of the present appraisal, since the property under consideration has a very specific use, the appraiser is of the opinion that it is very difficult to estimate the economic return from similar properties, as the scope of the enterprise is dependent on the region and its population. ... This fact must be taken into consideration by the Board. It cannot be forgotten, moreover, as appraisers often point out to the Board, that a valuation is an opinion. ...

Is the illegal act under consideration in the present case of the first class mentioned by Ritchie, J or the second class? ... The offence contemplated by the subsection under consideration is the wilful evasion of payment of taxes. ... The word “wilfully”, as used in the subsection under consideration, carries a distinct connotation of deliberate purpose and ulterior motive. ...

I quote subsection 83(3): 83. (3) An amount that would otherwise be included in computing the income for a taxation year of a person who has, either under an arrangement with the prospector made before the prospecting, exploration or development work or as employer of the prospector, advanced money for, or paid part or all of, the expenses of prospecting or exploring for minerals or of developing a property for minerals, shall not be included in computing his income for the year if it is the consideration for (a) an interest in a mining property acquired under the arrangement under which he made the advance or paid the expenses, or, if the prospector was his employee, acquired by him through the employee’s efforts, or (b) shares of the capital stock of a corporation received by him in consideration for property described in paragraph (a) that he has disposed of to the corporation, unless it is an amount received by him in the year as or on account of a rent, royalty or similar payment. lt is the contention of the appellant that one Joseph Conrad Frantz was a prospector within the definition of paragraph 83(1)(c) supra and that 10,000 free shares and 90,000 escrowed shares of the capital stock of Silverfields Mining Corporation Limited were acquired by the appellant’s predecessor Keevil Consultants Limited under an arrangement which the prospector made before the prospecting, exploration or development work or as an employer of the prospector and that, therefore, the income therefrom should not be computed in the income of the predecessor of the appellant, the said Keevil Consultants Limited, for the years 1963 and 1965. ... That company, in consideration for the claims, issued 700,000 shares and those shares were divided in accordance with the percentages set out in the agreement which I have quoted, so that 10,000 free shares and 90,000 escrowed shares were issued to Keevil Consultants Limited. ... It is true that in the evidence there were rather inexact and undetailed references to the hope or expected reward or bonus which, at Dr Keevil’s sole discretion, had been paid to Frantz on other occasions and which he might receive in reference to the transaction presently under consideration but no reliance whatsoever could be placed on such vague theorizing. ...

However, it was also conceded that different considerations prevail for income tax purposes and only those expenditures permitted by the Act are deductible in determining the taxable income of the company. ... At page 102 [321,1225] Viscount Simonds further stated: It is the same consideration which makes it clear that the evidence of expert witnesses, that the LIFO method is a generally acceptable and in this case the most appropriate, method of accountancy, is not conclusive of the question the court has to decide. ... It must be answered having regard to the facts of the particular case and the weight which must be given to a particular circumstance must depend upon practical considerations. ...

On November 1, 1963, that is prior to the conclusion of its 1963 financial year, the appellant sold its 5.49% interest in the Sturgeon Hewitt Big Lake lease to Medallion Petroleums Limited for a consideration of $7,936 and its 33 1/3% interest in two Crown petroleum and gas leases to Murphy Oil Company, Limited and Ashland Oil and Refining Company Limited for a consideration of $1,000. ... On April 21, 1964 the appellant sold its 5% interest in the leases in legal subdivisions 5 and 6 to Scurry Rainbow Oil Limited for a consideration of $5,000. ... In my view there is no ambiguity or lack of clarity in the words used in subsection (8a) and therefore I ought not to enter upon a refined consideration of the question whether those words carry out the object of the statute. ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1973] CTC 518, 73 DTC 5409 Walsh, J:—This appeal relies on the application of subsection 83(3) of the old Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148, which excludes from income: 83. (3) An amount that would otherwise be included in computing the income for a taxation year of a person who has, either under an arrangement with the prospector made before the prospecting, exploration or development work or as employer of the prospector, advanced money: for, or paid part or all of, the expenses of prospecting or exploring for. minerals or of developing a property for minerals, shall not be included in computing his income for the year if it is the consideration for (a) an interest in a mining property acquired under the arrangement under which he made the advance or paid the expenses, or, if the prospector was his employee, acquired by him through the employee’s efforts, or (b) shares of the capital stock of a corporation received by him in consideration for property described in paragraph (a) that he has disposed of to the corporation, unless it is an amount received by him in the year as or on account of a rent, royalty or similar payment. ... Sir Michael Butler, the attorney, admitted freely that he had set up the agreement with the provisions of section 83 in view and in order to avoid income tax assessment against the parties to it as a result of any profits realized on the eventual disposal of their shares in the stock of the corporation to be formed (Silverfields) which was issued to the parties to the agreement in consideration for the mining rights disposed of to the corporation. ... These claims were never registered in the name of appellant or any other members of the syndicate or of Goldfields as. attorney for the members of the syndicate, so it appears difficult to bring the assignment of them to Silverfields within the words of paragraph 83(3)(b) “shares of the capital stock of a corporation received by him in consideration for property described in paragraph (a) that he (ie, the appellant)* [1] has disposed of to the corporation”. ...

Prior to launching into a consideration of the issues I wish to express my gratitude to all counsel for the depth of their research and to commend them for the excellence of their presentations. ... In my view, income, for the purposes of the Act, is not necessarily determined by such considerations. ... I now turn to a consideration of the American cases in which the taxing statute is not dissimilar and in one of which the factual situation is almost identical to the case under appeal. ...

That in consideration of the accommodation extended by Robinson, the Robinson Company and C & T would pay to the appellant an amount equal to 3% per annum on the said $350,000 or any part remaining outstanding until paid in full, together with interest. 5. ... The plaintiffs in the actions in the Supreme Court of Ontario had an experienced and competent firm as their solicitors and much consideration must have been given to the matters involved. ... While at times in my consideration of this case I have been somewhat disposed to think that the appellant received the shares in trust, I have reached the conclusion that he received them in his personal capacity and on his own account and that the assessment made by the respondent was soundly based. ...

In seeking an answer, gross income, net income, capital investment, cash flow, personal involvement, and other factors may be relevant considerations. 20 A criterion Mr Justice Ryan mentions is to look at each of a taxpayer's sources from the point of view of capacity for both present or future profit. 21 In the present instance the plaintiff had from 1964 to 1968 engaged in farming as his sole source of income and it was not until 1968 when he sold that farm, being importuned to do so by an unsolicited offer of purchase at a price so attractive that he could not refuse, that he became the holder of a first mortgage securing the payment of an amount of $331,600 at 7% per annum. ... He did not continue on the family farm which the plaintiff had held out as a prospect to his son but did not actually anticipate. 25 Because of the normal cycle of reproduction and the expected expense of a new manner of farming in which the plaintiff engaged after careful consideration and planning, he anticipated that there would be a minimal loss which he could readily bear from his new affluence. ... Different considerations might prevail if there were more than two sources of income thereby resulting in different possible combinations. 32 In Robert Charles Simpson v Minister of National Revenue, [1961] C.T.C. 174, 61 D.T.C. 1117, the taxpayer had three sources of income. ...

She was assigned the objection in question for consideration and confirmed the reassessment. ... Taylor, then a member of the Tax Review Board was obviously satisfied that the taxpayer had made no attempt to review or comprehend his return and so there could have been no reasonable basis for his believing that the return was accurate. 71 As a result of the evidence given in the case at bar and taking into account the arguments made by counsel, three questions arise for the Court's consideration: 1>. ... Glass, supra, readily passed on to a consideration of the terms “negligence” and “gross negligence” and founded its decision on the lack of sufficiency of evidence of “gross negligence”. 79 The Court turns now to the consideration of question number 1. 80 It is clear from the evidence presented that the tax preparer was an experienced person in preparing individual tax returns, corporate returns and preparing the necessary documentation for section 85 roll-overs including the election and was experienced in business and banking matters generally. ...