Search - consideration

    [20]          I have noticed significant differences between the information obtained during telephone conversations while the file was under consideration, and the testimony given by Ms. ... Moreover, he receives a substantial salary in consideration of very little work, and his wife receives a salary as well ... Dessureault carried out her analysis judiciously, taking all relevant facts into consideration, and her finding is completely reasonable given the evidence ...

That François Gravil, personally and in trust, acknowledges receiving good and valuable consideration, full and final receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged.   ...     [7]               The Appellant also signed the following document on June 15, 2000:   [TRANSLATION]   I, the undersigned, François Gravil, acknowledge receiving $75,000.00 from Guy Picard for good and valuable consideration.   ... (ii)             on June 3, 2000, the company's board of directors passed the following resolution (Exhibit A‑21):   [TRANSLATION]   That the company shall give a good, sufficient and final acquittance to François Gravil and Guy Picard, personally and/or in trust, for the total of US$725,000 owed pursuant to the following resolutions:                                          A October 6, 1999                                        B October 21, 1999                                        C December 10, 1999   That the said loans shall be the full responsibility of Les Produits Déli‑Bon 2000 Inc., designating no. 1149110141, in consideration of the shares issued, namely 1,450,000 common shares (certificates C‑3, C‑4).     ...

It is worded as follows:   325. (1) Tax liability re transfers not at arm's length – Where at any time a person transfers property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means, to               (a) the transferor's spouse or common-law partner or an individual who has since become the transferor's spouse or common-law partner,   (b) an individual who was under eighteen years of age, or   (c)  another person with whom the transferor was not dealing at arm's length,                         the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay under this Part an amount equal to the lesser of   (d) the amount determined by the formula                                                                 A – B                         where   A   is the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at that time exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given by the transferee for the transfer of the property, and   B   is the amount, if any, by which the amount assessed the transferee under subsection 160(2) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the property exceeds the amount paid by the transferor in respect of the amount so assessed, and   (e) the total of all amounts each of which is   (i) an amount that the transferor is liable to pay or remit under this Part for the reporting period of the transferor that includes that time or any preceding reporting period of the transferor, or     (ii) interest or penalty for which the transferor is liable as of that time,   but nothing in this subsection limits the liability of the transferor under any provision of this Part ... Duhaime sold the immovables in question on October 7, 2002, to a third party in consideration of $1,875,000, and, on the same day, the Appellant sold all his shares in D.M.A. to Mr.  ... They are measures or mechanisms that facilitate the recovery of one person's principal tax liability from another person where property has been transferred, there is a non-arm's length relationship between the transferor and the transferee, and the value of the consideration is lower than the property's fair market value. ...

That issue reads: "The taxpayer would like to have the court consider adding a subsection to 84(3), or the relevant subsection, that takes into consideration when the said deemed dividend is not actually paid out in the same tax year as the disposition occurs; taxes owing should be based upon income actually received by the taxpayer. ... JUSTICE LITTLE:  It said: "The taxpayer would like to have the court consider adding a subsection to 84(3), or the relevant subsection, that takes into consideration when the said deemed dividend is not actually paid out in the same tax year as the disposition occurs; taxes owing should be based upon income actually received by the taxpayer.” ... I could make a suggestion in a judgment, for example, to say that this seems unfair and that Parliament should give consideration to amending the Act. ...

  [19]          With these considerations in mind, I will look at the evidence ... The Respondent should not have taken this fact into consideration.   [22]          For similar reasons, the fact that the Appellant allowed the payor to use the small plot of land should not have been considered by the Respondent ... Since I must determine the facts for the periods under appeal, I am not taking that evidence into consideration. [5]     Exhibit I‑1, page 6. [6]     The quote that follows is from the bottom of page 6 of Exhibit I-1. [7]     Exhibit I-1, page 7. [8]     The quote that follows is from page 7 of Exhibit I-1. [9]     Including the decision of Marceau J.A. in Légaré v. ...

  (1) Where a registrant makes a supply (other than an exempt or zero-rated supply) of property or a service to an individual or a person related to the individual and   (a) an amount (in this subsection referred to as the “benefit amount”) in respect of the supply is required under paragraph 6(1)(a), (e), (k) or (l) or subsection 15(1) of the Income Tax Act to be included in computing the individual's income for a taxation year of the individual, or   (b) the supply relates to the use or operation of an automobile and an amount (in this subsection referred to as a “reimbursement”) is paid by the individual or a person related to the individual that reduces the amount in respect of the supply that would otherwise be required under paragraph 6(1)(e), (k) or (l) or subsection 15(1) of that Act to be so included,   the following rules apply:   (c) in the case of a supply of property otherwise than by way of sale, the use made by the registrant in so providing the property to the individual or person related to the individual is deemed, for the purposes of this Part, to be use in commercial activities of the registrant and, to the extent that the registrant acquired or imported the property or brought it into a participating province for the purpose of making that supply, the registrant is deemed, for the purposes of this Part, to have so acquired or imported the property or brought it into the province, as the case may be, for use in commercial activities of the registrant, and   (d) …   for the purpose of determining the net tax of the registrant,   (v) the total of the benefit amount and all reimbursements is deemed to be the total consideration payable in respect of the provision during the year of the property or service to the individual or person related to the individual,   …   (emphasis added)   [14]          Since an amount was deducted from the paycheques of the employees, which was identified as “HST TB”, the employees were paying their employer for the use of the automobiles. ... Since the total consideration for the purposes of section 173 is the total amount of the benefit plus the reimbursement amount, the calculation of the HST deemed to be collected under section 173 of the Excise Tax Act is not affected by treating these amounts as reimbursements. ... The HST that is deemed to have been collected by the Appellant is based on the total of the benefit amounts and the reimbursements and therefore the total consideration for the purposes of section 173 of the Excise Tax Act will still be $119,776.68. ...

This means that the alleged settlor, whether he is giving the property on the terms of a trust or is transferring property on trust in exchange for consideration, must employ language which clearly shows his intention that the recipient should hold on trust. ... Timing of Income Inclusion – NQL Shares   [59]     Counsel for the Appellants argued that the Minister erred in including the value of the NQL shares as partial consideration for the sale of his Canfish shares, when full title of the shares was not received until several years following the sale ...   [61]     In my opinion, the Minister correctly included the value of the NQL shares as partial consideration, since this amount was receivable by the Appellants ...

Did it take irrelevant considerations into account? Was a great deal of weight accorded to irrelevant considerations? ...   [33]     Those considerations are completely secondary and marginal in the analysis of a matter of this kind ...

In arriving at this conclusion, I have taken into consideration that up to April 2001 no reference is made in the Appellant's brochures or elsewhere that GST was included in the fee charged, and I accept that the Appellant never intended that the GST be included. ... In the context of the exemption from taxation in the Indian Act, there are three important considerations: the purpose of the exemption; the character of the property in question; and the incidence of taxation upon that property. ... The charging section for the GST is section 165(1) of the ETA: 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. [40]     The tax is imposed on the recipient of a taxable supply, and a supply is defined as "the provision of property or a service in any manner, including sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease, gift or disposition" [5]. ...

The consideration received by the corporation for providing audiology services to the patients was a flow through of the fees received by myself from the provincial health services plan. ... HUGH ROONEY, of the Boler Medical Centre                                                                                                                         (hereinafter referred to as "Campbell" and "Rooney" respectively)- and-                                                   BRIAN FIELD, Audiologist                                                                                                                                     (hereinafter referred to as "Field")- and-                                                   722952 ONTARIO LIMITED, carrying on business as The Audiology Clinic of Southwestern Ontario                                                             (hereinafter referred to as "The Corporation")             WHEREAS Campbell and Rooney are medical doctors carrying their practices in the City of London, County of Middlesex at the Boler Medical Centre, 305 Boler Road;             AND WHEREAS Field is a Audiologist practicing in the City of London, County of Middlesex;             AND WHEREAS the parties wish to enter into an agreement concerning the relationship between them;             NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the sum of ONE ($1.00) DOLLAR and the mutual covenants herein contained the parties hereby agree as follows: 1.          ... Campbell and Rooney will collectively retain an amount equal to ten (10) percent of all fees for OHIP services provided to patients by the clinic in consideration of the consulting and administrative services provided by them. ...