Search - consideration

They contacted parents in consideration of curriculum development and they notified parents when educational objectives had been met. ... Contacted parents in consideration of curricular development i.         ...   [36]     Based upon an analysis of the evidence before me and the statements by the Appellants and a consideration of the Court decisions referred to above, I have concluded that in the relevant Period Sara Kerr was an independent contractor and not an employee of the Appellants for the purpose of the E.I. ...

For the purposes of this Part, where in the course of a business of making supplies of real property a person renovates or alters a residential complex of the person and the renovation or alteration is not a substantial renovation, the person shall be deemed   (a) to have made and received a taxable supply, in the province in which the complex is situated and at the earlier of the time the renovation is substantially completed and the time ownership of the complex is transferred, for consideration equal to the total of all amounts each of which is an amount in respect of the renovation or alteration (other than an amount of consideration paid or payable by the person for a financial service or for any property or service in respect of which the person is required to pay tax) that would be included in determining the adjusted cost base to the person of the complex for the purposes of the Income Tax Act if the complex were capital property of the person and the person were a taxpayer under that Act; and   (b) to have paid as a recipient and to have collected as a supplier, at that time, tax in respect of the supply, calculated on the total determined under paragraph (a).   ... This interpretation accords with the scheme of the Act which is to impose tax on the sale of newly constructed residential complexes on the entire consideration paid ...

In such a situation there would be no consideration for a contract to exist ... All that is relevant is that some services were provided for consideration. ... No. 1680 (which was affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal), Cuddihy, J. stated that:   20     From these cases parties are not dealing at arm's length when the predominant consideration or the overall interest or the method used amount to a process that is not typical of what might be expected of parties that are dealing with each other at arm's length.   21     Parties will not be dealing with each other at arm's length if there is the existence of a common mind which directs the bargaining for both parties to a transaction or that the parties to a transaction are acting in concert without separate interests or that either party to a transaction did or had the power to influence or exert control over the other and that the dealings of the parties are not consistent with the object and spirit of the provisions of the law and they do not demonstrate a fair participation in the ordinary operation of the economic forces of the market place 1.   22     Therefore the existence of a combination of one or several of these initiatives that would be inconsistent or interfere, in due process negotiating between employer and employee and with the object and intent of the legislation, will not survive the arm's length test ...

              (1) Where a person has, on or after May 1, 1951, transferred property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, to   (a)        the person's spouse or common-law partner or a person who has since become the person's spouse or common-law partner,   (b)        a person who was under 18 years of age, or   (c)        a person with whom the person 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 74.1 to 75.1 of this Act and section 74 of the Income Tax Act, chapter 148 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, 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 total 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 ... In assessing and in confirming assessment No. 27301, the Minister assumed the same facts, as follows:   (a)     on October 19, 2004, Hally Rose transferred property located at 3306 Carnegie Street in the City of Regina, Saskatchewan (the "Property") to the Appellant;   (b)     Hally Rose is the Appellant's husband;   (c)     at all material times, the Property was occupied as the family home of the Appellant and Hally Rose;   (d)     at all material times, the Appellant and Hally Rose were not dealing at arm's length;   (e)       at the time of the transfer, the fair market value of the Property was $140,000;   (f)      around or at the time of the transfer, there was a $110,000 mortgage on the Property;   (g)       there was no consideration given by the Appellant for the Property;   (h)     in respect of the taxation years prior to and including 2004, the aggregate of all amounts that Hally Rose was liable to pay under the Act was $57,302.89; and   (i)      Hally Rose filed an assignment in bankruptcy on June 29 [amended on consent at trial], 2005 ...   [13]     Three of the four requisite elements [9] of subsection 160(1) are admitted: that the Appellant and Hally were not at arm's length; that no consideration was given for the transfer; and that Hally was liable for tax at the time of the transfer. ...

Accordingly, eight optionholders exchanged their DFR options for share options issued by the appellant (the "Options") and no DFR options remained outstanding after the acquisition. [6]      The exchange was effected by agreements made with each optionholder which provided that the appellant would grant the Options in consideration for the cancellation of the DFR options. [7]      At the time of the exchange, the DFR options were "in the money," that is, they could be exercised for a price less than the then market value of the DFR shares to be acquired. ... The right to acquire the subsidiary's shares was not raised as an issue and I have assumed that it is not relevant to this appeal. [9]      It is agreed by the parties that the exchange of options was an integral part of the DFR takeover and that the Options were granted as part of the consideration for DFR. ... His report states that no surplus has been created because the exchange of options was an arm's length transaction, with all parties receiving full consideration for what they gave up. ...

  [25]  The ownership of tools, in my view, is not an important consideration. ... In these cases, the Court will ordinarily hear the argument and if, upon consideration, it finds merit in it, will adjourn the case to permit the Appellant to give any notices to the Provincial Attorneys General and/or to the Attorney General of Canada that may be required. ... Does the differential treatment discriminate by imposing a burden or withholding a benefit which promotes (through stereotypes or otherwise) the view that the Appellant is an individual less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being... equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration?   ...

., the Supreme Court of Canada clearly rejected that interpretation when he wrote as follows:   57. ... a dividend is a payment which is related by way of entitlement to one’s capital or share interest in the corporation and not to any other consideration.  ... R., 1996 CanRepNat 2472 (TaxPartner, Carswell CD-ROM), at paragraph 16, a company which pays dividends does not receive any consideration from its shareholders.  ...  ... ... I would also add that when an employer pays money in consideration of services rendered by an employee it is salary ...

Given that the amount of remuneration for the employment is one of the specifically enumerated considerations for purposes of paragraph 5(3)(b) of the EI Act in considering whether the terms of employment were arm’s length, this makes it difficult if not impossible for me to conclude whether or not the Minister’s determination on that point was reasonable. ... I do not believe that, at least in the circumstances of this case, those actions or considerations are relevant to a review of the terms of their employment for purposes of paragraph 5(3) (b). ... This means that this contribution may be relevant to the determination of whether the relationship between the company and the Appellants was arm’s length but is not particularly helpful in the consideration of whether the terms of their employment were arm’s length.   ...

Yahyaoui, he disposed of such shares of the Appellant as he owned, as well as advances to the Appellant in the amount of $252,000, in consideration of $72,500 and other forms of good and valuable consideration, including indemnification obligations ...   [19]     The Appellant, during the period in issue, made taxable supplies of services in respect of which it failed to collect the GST payable by the recipients, contrary to subsections 165(1) and 221(1) of the Act, which read:     165. (1) Imposition of goods and services tax — Subject to this Part, every recipient of a taxable supply made in Canada shall pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada tax in respect of the supply calculated at the rate of 7% on the value of the consideration for the supply.   221. (1) Collection — Every person who makes a taxable supply shall, as agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada, collect the tax under Division II payable by the recipient in respect of the supply ...

In confirming the reassessment of the Appellant's 2000 taxation year the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact: a)          On or about October 12, 1990, the Appellant acquired 10 Class B voting shares at a cost of $5,000 each; b)          On or about May 7, 1993, the Appellant acquired 1 Class B voting share at a cost of $5,000; c)          On November 26, 1999, the Company passed a resolution to redeem 169 Class B shares at a value of $500 per share; d)          The Appellant's 11 Class B shares were redeemed on November 26, 1999 at $500 per share; e)          The disposition claimed in the 2000 T1 return was incorrectly identified as Class A shares and not Class B shares; f)           On or about November 29, 1999 the Company issued a total of 999,950 Class A shares without par value for stated consideration of $.001 per share; g)          On or about November 29, 2000 the Appellant received 273,358 of the 999,950 Class A shares; h)          The Company sold its land, buildings and equipment on April 15, 2000; i)           On August 8, 2000, the Company purchased 231,000 Class A voting shares from the Appellant at a price of $1.123 per share for a total purchase price of $259,413; j)           The Company made a capital dividend election in respect of the deemed dividend incurred on redemption of the 231,000 Class A shares; k)          On August 14, 2000, 118,180 Class A shares were transferred to the Appellant from family members; l)           The Appellant did not acquire the shares from his family members for the purpose of gaining or producing income; m)         On or about August 15, 2000 the Company redeemed 160,562 Class A shares from the Appellant for a redemption price of $1.123 per share; 11.        ... (the "Company") is a corporation duly incorporated and resident in British Columbia; b)          As of August 7, 1990, the Company's authorized capital consisted of 50 Class A voting shares without par value, 200 Class B voting shares with a par value of $5,000 each and 10,000 Class C preference shares with a par value of $25 each; c)          As at November 24, 1999 the Appellant owned 25 Class A voting shares without par value; d)          As at November 26, 1999, the Appellant held 11 Class B voting shares; e)          As at November 26, 1999, the Appellant together with related persons controlled the Company; f)           As of August 8, 2000, the Appellant held 42,383 Class A voting shares; g)          As of August 14, 2000, the Appellant held 160,563 Class A voting shares without par value which consisted of 42,858 Class A shares without par value acquired for consideration of $.001 per share and 118,180 Class A shares without par value transferred to the Appellant from family members; h)          The Appellant's adjusted cost base for the 118,180 Class A shares transferred from other family members was zero; i)           On or about August 15, 2000, the Appellant was left with one Class A voting share; j)           The Company did not become bankrupt in the Appellant's 2000 taxation year; k)          The Company is not a corporation referred to in section 6 of the Winding-up and Restructuring Act that is insolvent; l)           No winding-up order was made in respect of the Company in the Appellant's 2000 taxation year; m)         The Company was not insolvent at the end of the Appellant's taxation year; n)          The Company did not carry on business at the end of the Appellant's 2000 taxation year; B.          ... The Appellant has not shown that he paid consideration to other individuals for the transfer of the 118,180 Class A shares therefore, the Appellant's adjusted cost base for the shares is zero. ...