Search - consideration

C-25, and articles 1651, 1654, 2781, 2941 and 2944 of the Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, must be taken into consideration to resolve the case at bar ... Tax liability re property transferred not at arm’s length 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     Transfert de biens entre personnes ayant un lien de dépendance 160. (1) Lorsqu’une personne a, depuis le 1 er mai 1951, transféré des biens, directement ou indirectement, au moyen d’une fiducie ou de toute autre façon à l’une des personnes suivantes: a) son époux ou conjoint de fait ou une personne devenue depuis son époux ou conjoint de fait; b) une personne qui était âgée de moins de 18 ans; c) une personne avec laquelle elle avait un lien de dépendance, les règles suivantes s’appliquent: d) le bénéficiaire et l’auteur du transfert sont solidairement responsables du paiement d’une partie de l’impôt de l’auteur du transfert en vertu de la présente partie pour chaque année d’imposition égale à l’excédent de l’impôt pour l’année sur ce que cet impôt aurait été sans l’application des articles 74.1 à 75.1 de la présente loi et de l’article 74 de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu, chapitre 148 des Statuts revisés du Canada de 1952, à l’égard de tout revenu tiré des biens ainsi transférés ou des biens y substitués ou à l’égard de tout gain tiré de la disposition de tels biens; e) le bénéficiaire et l’auteur du transfert sont solidairement responsables du paiement en vertu de la présente loi d’un montant égal au moins élevé des montants suivants: (i) l’excédent éventuel de la juste valeur marchande des biens au moment du transfert sur la juste valeur marchande à ce moment de la contrepartie donnée pour le bien,   Arm’s length 251. (1) For the purposes of this Act, (a) related persons shall be deemed not to deal with each other at arm’s length; […]   Definition of “related persons” (2) For the purpose of this Act, “related persons”, or persons related to each other, are (a) individuals connected by blood relationship, marriage or common-law partnership or adoption;   [Emphasis added.] ...   [21]            On November 15, 2001, the Minister of National Revenue issued the appellants an assessment of $77,983.48, representing the difference between the fair market value of the house, namely $220,000, and the amount they paid in consideration for the subrogation to the Bank’s rights, namely $142,016.52. ...

Each of these amendments provided that it was made in consideration of the other. ... In view of the fact that RDS and TSN are both Netstar subsidiaries, and that each amendment contains the statement that it is in consideration of the other, it is inconceivable that Mr. ... The first point for consideration, therefore, is whether the new evidence justifies referring the matter back to the CRTC for it to deal with complaints filed by the parties based on that evidence and all the other evidence at its disposal. ...

  [7]              The Appellant does not dispute that the transferor transferred $119,500 to him for no consideration, nor does he dispute that he is related to the transferor.  ... A person with whom the transferor was not dealing at arm’s length. 4)   The fair market value of the property transferred must exceed the fair market value of the consideration given by the transferee. 18 The purpose of subsection 160(1) of the Act is especially crucial to inform the application of these criteria. ... Canada, 2000 D.T.C. 2434 (T.C.C.) at paragraph 19). 19 As will be explained below, given the purpose of subsection 160(1), the intention of the parties to defraud the CRA as a creditor can be of relevance in gauging the adequacy of the consideration given. ...

Z. was supplied the subject property when he signed the agreement of purchase and sale (section 133 of the Act) and that he was a “recipient” as defined, because he was liable for the consideration under the agreement. ... This is because it is the principal ultimately who is liable to pay the consideration for the supply (Javaid, paragraph 24). [32]         Lastly, in Javaid the Court observed (paragraph 25), from a common sense perspective, that it, …would not make sense if an agent who signed an agreement of purchase and sale was required to comply with the occupancy requirements of the rebate provision. ... Ng paid or financed at the December 2012 closing when he acquired beneficial title to the new condominium. [40]         In consideration of all of the foregoing, I conclude that Ms. ...

The Queen, 2014 TCC 156. [4]   The transactions undertaken by the appellant in this case and the transactions in issue in Triad Gestco, 1207192 and Barrasso have a number of elements in common, in particular, that the taxpayer received shares from a new company controlled by the taxpayer in exchange for consideration of significant value (either property or a promissory note). The value of the shares at the time of their issuance to the taxpayer was equal to the value of the consideration provided by the taxpayer. ... These transactions resulted in a capital gain and the creation of a capital loss on the part of the appellant: (i)   on January 4, 2005, Richard Jobin transferred his Groupe AST shares to the appellant by a rollover under subsection 85(1) of the Act; (ii)   on January 6, 2005, Groupe AST increased the paid-up capital on the shares held by the appellant, which resulted in a deemed dividend of $2,600,000 to the appellant; (iii)   in its income tax return, the appellant reported a capital gain of $2,600,000 for the Groupe AST deemed dividend; (iv)   on January 14, 2005, the appellant exchanged shares (including, in particular, the Groupe AST shares) with 9144, which resulted in a capital gain of $9,875,137, apportioned as follows: Shares Proceeds of disposition Adjusted cost base Gain (or loss) 11,143,607 Groupe AST shares $11,143,607 $2,941,413 $8,202,194 100 FHS (Focus on Health & Safety) shares $856,878 $50 $856,828 100 AST Assurances shares $230,322 $100 $230,222 100 Assurance Générale shares $0 $100 ($100) 400 Optimisst shares $168,280 $400 $167,880 300 Groupe AGI shares $448,113 $30,000 $418,113 Total $12,847,200 $2,972,063 $9,875,137 (v)   as consideration for the above-mentioned shares, 9144 issued to the appellant 9,999,900 Class A shares of its capital stock, the reported capital of which is $12,847,200; (vi)   the appellant reported a capital gain of $12,475,137 and a taxable capital gain of $6,237,569 on its income tax return for the 2005 taxation year. ...

After reviewing the relevant portions of Symes, Justice Lamarre summarizes key considerations in applying paragraph 18(1)(a) as follows: 16 Thus, in order to be deductible as business expenses, the expenses in question must have been incurred “for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business” within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)(a) of the ITA. ... These factors, analyzed in the context of the circumstances of this case, suggest that the legal expenses at issue cannot be classified as business expenses . . . . [25]         I note that there is no hard and fast set of factors to consider. [26]         Before applying these considerations, I shall begin with the following two observations. [27]         First, I failed to see any basis upon which one could say that the original lawsuit, which was started by the Appellant and his spouse, against the in‑laws is in any way “for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the” Appellant’s proprietorship. ... Let us consider this in terms of the kind of considerations described in Symes and Leduc, above. [34]         Is this kind of expense one normally incurred by people in such a business? ...

It reads: …humanitarian and compassionate considerations refer to “those facts, established by the evidence, which would excite in a reasonable man [sic] in a civilized community a desire to relieve the misfortunes of another — so long as these misfortunes ‘warrant the granting of special relief’ from the effect of the provisions of the Immigration Act”… [12]   Turning to the H&C considerations, the IAD noted that the Applicant is well established in Canada. ... It reads: 67 (1) To allow an appeal, the Immigration Appeal Division must be satisfied that, at the time that the appeal is disposed of, 67 (1) Il est fait droit à l’appel sur preuve qu’au moment où il en est disposé: (c) other than in the case of an appeal by the Minister, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision, sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case. c) sauf dans le cas de l’appel du ministre, il y a — compte tenu de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant directement touché — des motifs d’ordre humanitaire justifiant, vu les autres circonstances de l’affaire, la prise de mesures spéciales. [36]   In Jugpall, the IAD said in paragraph 34 that “The exercise of the Appeal Division’s statutory discretion must be carried out in such a way as to ensure the integrity of the Act is preserved and appellants are also treated fairly”. [37]   Turning to the case at bar, it is my conclusion that under the current Regulation, a visa officer must accept the income on Notices of Assessment at the application stage. ...

  [28]   Pay Audio submits that if the Minister’s Delegate had properly appreciated the broad scope of the discretion afforded by section 23 of the FAA, he would have taken into consideration general principles of fairness in his analysis of the remission request in addition to the guidelines outlined in the Remission Guide. ... All four factors set out in the Remission Guide, beyond the two identified by KPMG, were taken into consideration. ... The Minister’s Delegate concluded that he could not recommend the issuance of remission order based solely on an error by Pay Audio. [32]   The Minister’s Delegate was alive to the fact that the over-remittance could have a financial impact on Pay Audio, but concluded that no mitigating circumstances, beyond Pay Audio’s control, had been established for its failure to provide correct information to the Revenu Québec auditor. [33]   Pay Audio submits that a crucial consideration in this case is that the amount paid by the Applicant was never “legally” payable to Revenu Québec and was paid instead as a result of an innocent error made in good faith. ...

Abbvie Corporation, 2014 FCA 112, 120 C.P.R. (4th) 385 at paras. 13-14. [22]   Perhaps the toughest obstacle for a party seeking a stay is the requirement to prove the existence of irreparable harm. [23]   The moving party’s failure to ask the administrative decision-maker to delay the effect of its decision may be relevant to the reviewing court’s consideration of a motion to stay the administrative decision and, in particular, the presence of irreparable harm. ... The motion to file an additional affidavit [40]   The Attorney General seeks leave to file an additional affidavit in support of its application for judicial review under Rule 312. [41]   At the outset, as a motions judge, I must decide whether to decide the motion myself or adjourn it for the consideration of the panel hearing the judicial review. ... In these circumstances, judicial economy may favour leaving the motion to the appeal panel, unless for some reason time is of the essence or other considerations favour immediate determination. ...

and receive the answer “Correct.” [35]   Those last two lines clearly concede the rebate. [36]   Given that the rebate issue was conceded, we are clearly not in a situation where this Court should vary the outcome even if it could. [37]   In these circumstances there is one other reason for dismissing the application even if the rebate had not been conceded in circumstances where it would appear to have been conceded: a potential fairness issue. [38]   In considering whether the Court should vary or amend a judgment when the circumstances fall into one of the exceptions to the finality of judgments, other considerations may be relevant such as fairness to the other party. [39]   The Respondent’s submissions are, of course, correct that no GST or HST rebate is possible if there are no expenses deductible under the Income Tax Act. [40]   However, while I found that none of the $1,149 employment expenses in issue were deductible, [17] there were some $1,866 in employment expenses claimed on line 212 and allowed by the Minister. [41]   Earlier in these reasons, I pointed out that the maximum possible GST or HST on the $1,149 of employment expenses claimed on line 229 of the Appellant’s tax return would be, at most, $149.37 of HST. ... While we do not have any evidence at the hearing as to the nature of the $1,866, we do know that it was claimed and allowed. [21] [45]   In written submissions, the Respondent stated that it is for the Appellant to demonstrate the claim and bring the receipt to support that claim. [46]   However, given that the rebate claim was conceded, and even if it were the case that the claim only appeared to have been conceded, there was no reason to bring forth evidence with respect to the $1,866 given that the expense itself had been allowed. [22] [47]   As a result, before any variation could be considered and even it could otherwise be varied, fairness would require the matter be reopened to explore what the $1,866 was and whether the Appellant paid any GST or HST on the amount. [48]   If it could otherwise be varied and if I had a request before me to reopen the matter, I would not in the circumstances do so at this point considering the circumstances including the modest amount at stake and considering subsection 18.15(3) of the Tax Court of Canada Act which says: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act under which the appeal arises, the Court is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in conducting a hearing and the appeal shall be dealt with by the Court as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit. [49]   For these reasons, the application will be dismissed. ... After receiving this application, I listened to the portion of the recording of the hearing prior to the start of evidence and I ordered the transcript. [9] See Exhibit R-3, which is an “Option C” printout. [10] Subsection 8(10) of the Income Tax Act does not apply to the types of expenses set out in subparagraph 8(1)(i)(i) or (iv) to (vii) of the Income Tax Act. [11] See, for example, Rule 168(b) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure). [12] See section 3 of the Tax Court of Canada Act. [13] The Constitution limits to some extent what subject matter jurisdiction can be conferred on courts that are not superior courts. [14] See the definition of adjudicate and the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, 2004. [15] Stated in more traditional language, I am functus officio. [16] The form in question would be a GST 370. [17] These were the employment expenses claimed on line 229 as shown on the “Option C” printout that is Exhibit R-3. [18] See paragraph 40 of the Reasons for Judgment in this matter. [19] This was one unexpressed consideration underlying what I said in note 50 of the Reasons for Judgment in this matter. [20] Mathematically, at 13% HST on $1,866 would be about $243. ...