Search - consideration

In making these claims, counsel for the respondent relied on the very broad scope of the word “business” defined in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act and on the fact that the charitable receipt was, in the circumstances, in the nature of a consideration. ... It is perhaps not pointless to reproduce below subparagraph 4(k) of the reply to the notice of appeal in the record of the appellant Dominique Langis: (k) the appellant's income for the 1986 taxation year was revised to convert the capital gain into a net business profit, based on the following computation: Consideration deemed received F.M.V. of asset $10,000 Transportation costs 100 $10,100 less Cost of asset $ 3,000 Sales tax 270 Transportation 100 Net business profit $ 6,730 [Translation.] ... I am not inclined to believe, as the respondent argued, that one can call the contract signed between each appellant and the University Service a contract of exchange, the receipt being the consideration provided by the University Service. ...

.), in which Judge Mogan said that the facts that no interest was charged on advances made and no consideration was received for the guarantee given to the bank were not insurmountable impediments in claiming an allowable business investment loss which he then found to exist. ... M.N.R., [1988] 1 C.T.C. 2081, 88 D.T.C. 1070 (T.C.C.) in which Judge Brulé of this Court found that Ellis gave his guarantee neither for the purpose of earning income nor for proper consideration. ... She stated that there was no consideration given for the guarantee and no provision for the payment of interest if the guarantee was honoured. ...

All those considerations taken into account, the decision clearly was made that he would complete the transfer and retain the property. ... He acted, in my view, whether out of consideration for his parents only or not, and perhaps without sufficient legal advice. ... Relevant statutory provisions Subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act provides as follows: 160.(1) Where a person has, on or after the 1st day of May, 1951, transferred property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, to (a) his spouse or a person who has since become his spouse, (b) a person who was under 18 years of age, or (c) a person with whom he 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, 75 or 75.1, as the case may be, 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 aggregate 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 which he is the principal shareholder, a farming business (including equipment, rolling stock, good will and inventory) which he had previously been operating personally; [admitted] (b) in consideration of this transfer the company assumed certain of the appellant's debts and issued him Class B preferred shares; [admitted] (c) however, the appellant remained owner of the land on which his business had been operated before being transferred to the company; [admitted] (d) during 1985, 1986 and 1987 the appellant leased his land to his company and in this connection reported the following income and expenditure: 1985 1986 1987 Gross leasing income $10,800 $ 7,400 $ 6,900 Expenditure: Interest 20,887 17,635 14,131 Other costs 1,075 21,962 1,592 19,227 614 14,745 Net leasing loss $11,162 $11,827 $ 7,845 [admitted] (e) for his 1985, 1986 and 1987 taxation years, the appellant did not operate any business; [admitted] (f) during those years the appellant's land was not used in the operation of or held in the course of a business carried on by the appellant. ... This property was assigned in consideration of the company assuming the debts of the appellant’s business and of the issuing of Class B preferred shares having a fair market value of $85,080. ... The appellant himself indicated in his notice of appeal that he was leasing the farmland to the company in consideration of a rent equal to or greater than the market rate (3.07). ...

Sander's right to explore the propriety of the detention and the re-seizure, including the nature of the advice received and, “ whether the investigators complied with the advice and what considerations they gave to the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal and to the rights of Mr. ... What consideration was given to returning requested documents? 10. Before either warrant was obtained, what other means of investigation were considered? ... Considerations which the investigators brought to their decision to detain; 3. ...

Pouliot signed a promissory note for $50,000 in consideration of the amounts of money he had borrowed (Exhibit A-1). 3.09 The subsequent facts are those assumed by the respondent in his reply to the notice of appeal and quoted above (2.02). 3.10 It must be added, however, that, on May 16, 1988, Mr. ... Law—case law and doctrine—analysis 4.01 Law The main provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in the instant appeal are subsections 160(1) and (2), which read as follows: 160. (1) Where a person has, on or after the 1st day of May, 1951, transferred property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, to (a) his spouse or a person who has since become his spouse, the following rules apply: (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 aggregate of all amounts each of which is an amount that the transferor is liable to pay under this Act 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. (2) The Minister may at any time assess a transferee in respect of any amount payable by virtue of this section and the provisions of this Division are applicable mutatis mutandis in respect of an assessment made under this section as though it had been made under section 152. 4.02 Case Law and Doctrine The case law and the doctrine cited by the parties are as follows: 1. ... Pouliot is the conclusion of several loans made by the appellant to the latter between 1970 and 1977 (3.03, 3.04) and that the consideration paid by the appellant to Mr. ...

[2] above did not qualify for consideration under Part VIII of the Act. ... Month of issue June/1984 Amount of consideration received $266,100 2. ... It might be useful to add at this point, that aside from the critical fact the $159,600 had been expended before incorporation, there was little if anything in the modest amount of information provided at the trial regarding the nature of these expenditures which would qualify them for consideration as research costs. ...

In 1982, the Province of Alberta (Department of Highways) expropriated a strip of land along the road comprising 16.95 acres and paid to the appellant $475,000 as the principal consideration. ... If it is the appellant's position that the amount of $130,000 represented all or part of the consideration for the land alone, the burden was on the appellant to prove that fact but the evidence falls far short of such proof. ... The relevant words of the release are: IN CONSIDERATION of the payment of the sum of One Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($130,000), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, PEPPINO BASSANI (hereinafter called "Bassani"), for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, hereby RELEASES AND FOREVER DISCHARGES Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta, as represented by The Minister of Transportation, from any and all claims for compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Expropriation Act, arising from the taking by the said Minister of Bassani's interest as lessor of (land description follows). ...

Paragraph 4 of that article provides as follows: The following are exempt from seizure: (4) Alimentary allowances granted judicially and sums or pensions given or bequeathed as alimony, even though the deed creating them has not declared them to be exempt from seizure; Because this debt is not liable to seizure, clearly this is not a case of compensation by the sole operation of law, given the provisions of article 1190 of the Civil Code, part of which reads as follows: Compensation takes place whatever be the cause or consideration of the debts or of either of them, except in the following cases: 3. ... I do not need to decide this question, but at first glance I am doubtful as to the merits of this argument because in my view the concept of release implies a gift without consideration, and here the parties clearly did not intend to take advantage. ... In view of the unsatisfactory evidence with respect to the amounts of alimony in issue in 1983, I ask counsel for the appellant Blais and the respondent, in co-operation with the agent for the appellant Poliquin, to submit draft judgments in these appeals to the Court as soon as possible for my consideration. ...

Justice Mahoney said at pages 241-42 (D.T.C. 5084): With respect, I do not agree that Moldowan suggests disjunctive consideration of pertinent factors in quite the way the learned trial judge has dealt with them. ... Appeal dismissed. 1 1 think that in a context where relativity between or among sources of income is pertinent as it is in the determination of “chief source" a dividend gross-up should be excluded from consideration because of its artificiality and resulting distortive effect. 2 Earlier in his reasons for judgment, Dickson, J. said commencing at page 314 (D.T.C. 5215): Whether a source of income is a taxpayer's “chief source” of income is both a relative and objective test. ... This applies whether in a particular case the activity under consideration is farming or snow removal or something else: Coupland v. ...