Search - consideration

(recipient) [30] In this case, CIBC is the person who was liable to pay the consideration under the agreement with Aeroplan. ... Instead, CIBC is the person who was liable to pay the consideration under this agreement, and hence was liable to pay the GST. ... Aeroplan accepts Miles as consideration for airline tickets, merchandise or gift cards with few conditions on their redemption. ...

It is the Appellant's position that this ITC entitlement of D-Win is the effect of subsection 141.01(4) after applying subsection 141.01(7). [10]         Subsection 141.01(7) applies for purposes of subsection (4) among others if a provision of the GST legislation "deems the consideration for a supply not to be consideration for the supply", or "deems a supply to be made for no consideration", or "deems a supply not to have been made by a person. ... It does not deem consideration not to be consideration, does not deem a supply to have been made for no consideration, and does not deem a supply not to have been made by D-Win ... In fact and law, there was clearly lots of consideration flowing between these two parties as set out in their contract. ...

In making and confirming the reassessment, the Minister assumed that no consideration was provided by Mrs. ... Waugh, consideration of an amount equal to the amount transferred was provided by Mrs. ... Waugh had performed services in respect of the new business venture, as consideration for funds that were deposited into her account, such consideration would constitute employment or business income to her. ...

In dealing with the third condition, he held that the wife's stated moral obligation to pay out the monies according to his instructions did not amount to consideration. ... Thus no trust was created. [9]                 The stronger argument put by the Appellant was that there had been valid consideration given by the wife in the form of her promise to pay out monies only on his direction. If there was valid consideration equal in value to the property transferred, then section 160(1) does not apply. [10]            If indeed the wife had made a legally enforceable promise to pay out monies only on the husband's direction to his creditors in amounts equal to the monies transferred, this might well have constituted sufficient consideration in order to avoid the application of section 160(1). ...

For example, the parties to a transaction may record the fair market value of the non-partnership interest consideration as being $X. ... Specifically, the Respondent asserts that the Amended Notice of Appeal fails to identify the total consideration that R & S says was paid and the allocation of that consideration among the different items of property. ... During the hearing of the motion, R & S conceded that the total consideration was $39,931,772. ...

The only issue raised by the parties at trial was whether the Appellant provided consideration for the transfer of the Property, and if so, in what amount. ... This consideration was her personally taking responsibility of the JEMM loan. ... CONCLUSION: [22]   The Appeal is allowed and the matter referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reassessment on the basis that the shortfall in consideration on the transfer of the Property was only $11,353, being Mr. ...

The Plaintiff assumed that the said $40,000.00 is reasonably to be regarded as being in part consideration for the disposition of depreciable property and in part consideration for the disposition of real property; vii. ... The paragraph reads: 20. (6) For the purpose of this section and regulations made under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11, the following rules apply: (g) where an amount can reasonably be regarded as being in part the consideration for disposition of depreciable property of a taxpayer of a prescribed class and as being in part consideration for something else, the part of the amount that can reasonably be regarded as being the consideration for such disposition shall be deemed to be the proceeds of disposition of depreciable property of that class irrespective of the form or legal effect of the contract or agreement; and the person to whom the depreciablie property was disposed of shall be deemed to have acquired the property at a capital cost to him equal to the same part of that amount; Defendant alleges, of course, that the purchase price of $40,000 was in consideration of land only, and that at no time was any portion of the sale price considered to be in respect of the building. ... However, in apportioning the respective value of land and building, I must take into consideration the fact that defendant did not receive $42,500, but only $40,000. ...

The historical background necessary for a consideration of the problem may be summarized as follows: 1. It was established by Catherine Spooner v MNR, [1928-34] CTC 184; (1920-40), 1 DTC 258, that an annual payment based on production paid pursuant to an agreement for sale as consideration for the property sold was consideration for the sale of the property and therefore of a Capital nature and was not income from the property. ... In MNR v Wain-Town Gas and Oil Co, Ltd (supra) paragraph 3(1)(f) of the Income War Tax Act was again under consideration. ...

In my view paragraph 20(6)(g) applied in circumstances where an amount received by a taxpayer could reasonably be regarded as being in part the consideration for disposition of depreciable property and as being in part consideration for something else other than depreciable property. ... Under that section, the requirement for applicability was that the consideration be in part the consideration for disposition of depreciable property and in part the consideration for something else. ... When this factual situation occurs, the rule then permits the allocation of that part of the consideration received in the total transaction to depreciable assets as “can reasonably be regarded as being in part the consideration for disposition of depreciable property of a taxpayer”. ...

The question therefore is whether the supply was made by the Appellant for no consideration. ... Therefore the Appellant submits that those funds constituted consideration for the supply. ... Had this link been established, the consideration argument would have succeeded ...