Search - consideration

Coutre for consideration of $1,000.00 per lot; (l)                   as of May 15, 1998, the fair market value of Lot A was at least $73,000.00; (m)               as of May 15, 1998, the fair market value of Lot B was at least $81,000.00;             (n)                 the additional proceeds of disposition with respect to Lot A were $72,000.00, being the fair market value of $73,000.00 less the consideration of $1,000.00 already received; and (o)                the additional proceeds of disposition with respect to the Appellant's one-half interest in Lot B were $40,000.00, being one-half the fair market value of $81,000.00 less one-half of the consideration of $1,000.00 already received. 11.        ...

Given the age and class of property, as well as the initial level of vacancy this approach would not be given consideration by typical buyers and sellers and has not been included for the purposes of this report ... R., 83 DTC 5140 where he said at page 5157:   While it has frequently been held that a Court should not, after considering all the expert and other evidence merely adopt a figure somewhere between the figure sought by the contending parties, it has also been held that the Court may, when it does not find the evidence of any expert completely satisfying or conclusive, nor any comparable especially apt, form its own opinion of valuation, provided this is always based on the careful consideration of all the conflicting evidence. ... Ingram had stated that the cost approach would not be given consideration by typical buyers and sellers and has not been included for the purposes of this report (see page 20). ...

Room for social policy and consideration of ability to pay are legitimate perspectives that might result in differential treatment. ... This denial is maintained if either the taxpayer required to pay support claims the deduction under section 60 or, (even if no claim is made or allowed under the post-April 1997 child support regime), if the taxpayer required to pay support lives separate and apart from the former spouse (to whom he is required to pay support) by virtue of marriage breakdown. [13]     In all years under consideration in the case at bar, the Appellant was required to pay support and was living separate and apart from his former spouse to whom he was required to pay the support by virtue of marriage breakdown. ... If so, does the treatment discriminate by imposing a burden or withhold a benefit from the Appellant in a manner reflective of stereotypical applications of presumed personal characteristics or in a manner which has the effect of perpetrating or promoting the view that the Appellant is less capable or less worthy of recognition or value or not equally deserving of concern, respect or consideration in his role as a parent having joint custody of a child and paying child support as required under an order of a competent tribunal, namely, in this case, under the order of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba Family Division? ...

Therefore, if the investigative and analytical work performed under the discretionary power granted by Parliament in paragraph 5(3)(b) of the Act was judiciously carried out with adequate consideration of all the relevant facts, the Court cannot intervene ...   [19]     Two statutes that must be taken into consideration in this analysis deal with the contract of employment or contract of service. ... The relevant documents, elements and facts were all available and taken into consideration. ...

Subsection 160(1) reads as follows: 160(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. [19]     The Appellant raises three arguments:            (i)      There was no transfer of property as Tony Merchant's payment of Matthew's taxes was a loan;            (ii)      If there was a transfer of property, the Minister has not proven that at the time Matthew was assessed in 2003, Tony was liable to pay any tax in respect of the tax years in which the property was transferred; and            (iii)     Consideration in the form of a moral or legal obligation of a parent to a child represents adequate consideration, removing these payments by Tony on Matthew's behalf from the application of section 160. [20]      (i) Transfer of property. ...

and (C)        Does the differential treatment discriminate, by imposing a burden upon or withholding a benefit from the claimant in a manner which reflects the stereotypical application of presumed group or personal characteristics, or which otherwise has the effect of perpetuating or promoting the view that the individual is less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society, equally deserving of concern, respect, and consideration? Purpose (4)         In general terms, the purpose of s. 15(1) is to prevent the violation of essential human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political or social prejudice, and to promote a society in which all persons enjoy equal recognition at law as human beings or as members of Canadian society, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration. (5)         The existence of a conflict between the purpose or effect of an impugned law and the purpose of s. 15(1) is essential in order to found a discrimination claim. ... The effects of a law as they relate to the important purpose of s. 15(1) in protecting individuals or groups who are vulnerable, disadvantaged, or members of "discrete and insular minorities" should always be a central consideration. ...

This section read as follows:    178      For the purpose of this Part, where in making a supply of a service a person incurs an expense for which the person is reimbursed by the recipient of the supply, the reimbursement shall be deemed to be part of the consideration for the supply of the service, except to the extent that the expense was incurred by the person as an agent of the recipient ... Section 178 of the Act, prior to its repeal, specifically excluded such amounts from the consideration for services. ...   [22]     In Policy P-182, the CCRA also recommends that the following indicators of agency be taken into consideration to determine whether agency exists, once the essential qualities have been established:   1 —   Remuneration: the agent receives a set fee for the activities undertaken to be completed rather than the profit from a transaction;   2 —   Ownership of property: generally speaking, an agent does not acquire any interest in the property obtained from a third party as ownership passes directly to or from the principal;   3 —   Liability of contract/liability for payment: the principal is liable for contracts and payments;   4 —   Accounting practice: the fact that a person segregates from his own funds any monies received or paid out in connection with another person is indicative of an agency capacity;   5 —   Best efforts: an agent usually undertakes to use his best efforts in acting for his principal, rather than guaranteeing to achieve a certain result to or on the principal’s behalf;   6 —   Assumption of risk: would normally be borne by the principal;   7 —   Alteration of property acquired: the principal is solely entitled to alter the nature of the property;   8 —   Use of property or service by agent: the principal only should normally be entitled to use the property ...

" He answered the question in the positive and said that the son, and later the company, would make the payments plus an extra amount, if possible, and this was the consideration for making the investment. ... There the Court found in favour of the taxpayer and found the requisite business purpose even though there was no consideration. ... There has to be some consideration for the guarantee that existed. There was no arrangement as to interest in that case. ...

(hereinafter "Nordik"), that is, 75 per cent of the shares sold in the transaction, the total consideration of which was $100,000; the appellant thus received $75,000. ... In other words, the appellant argued, he leased the parking lot personally owned by him for an annual consideration of $25,000 "net, net, net", which in his view meant that all expenses, fees and other disbursements were to be the responsibility, not of himself, but of the lessee company. ... I refer in particular to the companies, the transactions, and all the decisions and operations with which the appellant was closely associated. [35]     The second element results from two court decisions: a first by the Tax Court of Canada rendered by Lamarre Proulx J.T.C.C.; and a second by the Superior Court of Quebec rendered by McIntyre J. [36]     The respondent argued that the appellant was not entitled to claim any loss since, if there was a loss, it was offset by the fact that Navimex had paid $86,429 in legal fees for which the appellant was personally responsible. [37]     In order to establish the validity of her arguments, the respondent adduced in evidence a stack of invoices issued by the legal firm that acted in the proceedings dealing with the parking lot; these invoices were issued to the appellant personally. [38]     The appellant contested this argument, stating that Navimex was to assume responsibility for all fees; he relied on a lease between himself and the company under which all expenses were the exclusive responsibility of the lessee Navimex, on the basis that the agreed consideration of $25,000 was "net, net, net". [39]     In this case, the appellant made choices that had effects and consequences. ...

  [7]      Sandra Piercey confirmed in her evidence that the ability to obtain EI benefits was also a consideration. ... It appeared from the evidence that she included the amount of $300.00 as a consideration paid to Sandra Piercey by the company for the assets, although this amount did not reflect the true value of the assets which, I believe, are closer to a value of $25,000.00. ... The second stage of the inquiry involves a consideration of whether or not the Appellant has established on a balance of probabilities that a similar contract of service would have been entered into between the parties had they not been related. ...