Search - consideration

The uncontradicted evidence relied on by the Tax Court Judge is that valid consideration flowed from the owner-operators to Vanex on which GST should have been charged and remitted. ... That section provides that 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. ...

The rule provides that: The words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament. [24]     The clear language of subsection 164(1.2) provides that the jeopardy to the collection of the taxpayer’s debt that needs to be established by the Ministers is the jeopardy that would be caused by the “repayment” of the amount of the refund. [25]     Further, by inserting the provision in that part of the Act dealing with refunds, Parliament intended to provide for measures to be available on application by the Minister, where jeopardy is established, to ensure that such refunds be retained and applied as a set-off against amounts that are under objection or appeal. [26]     In my view, factors that require consideration in the circumstances of a subsection 164(1.2) application are the amount of the debt to be collected relative to the amount of the refund, the taxpayer’s ability to pay or otherwise satisfy the debt, the value of the taxpayer’s net assets and whether these are sufficient and available to satisfy the debt independently of the refund. ... Upon consideration of such factors, if there are reasonable grounds to believe, in all of the circumstances, that release of the refund to the taxpayer would result in that amount not being available to the Minister for collection against the debt, then collection of the debt is jeopardized for the purposes of subsection 164(1.2) and a jeopardy order pursuant to that provision is justified. [11]            In this case, I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the funds now in the hands of the Minister would likely be jeopardized if returned to the Respondent. ...

For 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2003 the appellant neither collected, reported or remitted GST on the consideration paid for the acupuncture treatment provided in those years.   8.       For 2001 and 2002 the appellant reported GST on only a portion of the consideration paid for the acupuncture treatment provide in those years.   9.       ...

In expanding into these new areas of activity, the board of directors opted to proceed by purchasing an existing business. [5] After having acquired such a business, the Coop learned that this business which, until then, had been the property of the appellant’s family, was in grave financial difficulty to the point where it had availed itself of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. [6]Following an in-depth assessment of the situation and after that business's proposal had been accepted by its creditors, the Coop acquired all the shares held by the appellant's family for a nominal consideration of one dollar. [7] The Coop then paid $248,861 in settlement of all debts, which amounted to $691,007 (Exhibit A-2). ... On the other hand, it is just as important that there be genuine employment, without which the exercise of applying the criteria is completely useless. [22]Genuine employment is employment remunerated according to market conditions, which contributes in a real and positive way to the advancement and development of the business paying the salary in consideration of work performed. ...

That mortgage refers to a hypothec in favour of Bache, CIBC and CIBC Mortgage Corporation. [9]On July 9, 1990, Paula Wainberg transferred to the appellant all her right, title and interest in the Argyle property for “ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good and valuable considerations” and “the Purchaser’s assuming to the complete exoneration of Vendor the existing hypothecs in favour of CIBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION registered at Montréal under No. 3368820 and CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE registered at Montréal under No. 4279689”. ... It appears therefore that the proceeds of the CIBC mortgage of May 16, 1990 were not used to retire the earlier Royal Trust mortgage, which by then was owned by CIBC Mortgage Corporation. [10]The deed of the property from Paula Wainberg further states that “The actual consideration is $150,000.” [11]This amount was not paid by the appellant and I find as a fact that he paid no more than $1.00. [12]On April 1, 1991 the appellant borrowed $110,000 from the CIBC Mortgage Corporation and gave as security a mortgage on the Argyle property. ...

These factors should then be analyzed to determine what weight they should be given in identifying the location of the property, in light of three considerations: (1) the purpose of the exemption under the Indian Act; (2) the type of property in question; and (3) the nature of the taxation of that property. ... The provision in the lease to give members of the Nootka Band of Indians preference in employment in the operations on the premises to the extent that such members were suitable and available for such employment does not create a discernible nexus between the employment income and the occupancy of Reserve lands by the Appellant. [10] In light of the considerations to be applied to these findings, including, the purpose of the exemption under the Indian Act, it is apparent that the type of property in question, is not meant to be protected from the taxation in question. ...

In my view, the consideration of start-up losses is a relevant factor to weigh in the overall determination of whether a new commercial operation has a reasonable expectation of profit (see Tonn, et al v. ... As is explained below, the legal test for establishing farming as a chief source of income is, on an evidential level, a more onerous one. and further at page 5501: Any doubt as to whether the taxpayer's chief source of income is farming is resolved once consideration is given to the element of profitability. ...

The decision to hire the Appellant for 35 hours per week to perform duties she performed in 16 hours per week indicates a non-arm's length contract of employment;- while the Appellant and the Payor Silverstone were not related they were not in fact dealing with each other at arm's length within the meaning of paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Act;- a person dealing with a payor at arm's length would have been paid only for hours worked and not on a fixed salary basis;- the purported employment of the Appellant by the Payor Silverstone during the relevant periods allowed the Appellant to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits and were not based on any business consideration or need;- there was no contract of service between the Appellant and the Payor Silverstone;- having regard to all the circumstances of the employment, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, it is not reasonable to conclude that the Appellant and the payor would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length. ... Noor Daya controls the Payor Twin Towers' business as well as another day care facility, the Payor Silverstone, which is located in the same building and, together, the two facilities can accommodate up to 139 children;- the Appellant worked on a full time basis (35 hours/week) earning a flat salary of $1,500 every two weeks ($39,000/annum) for performing the following duties: some bookkeeping, purchasing and sorting groceries and toys, obtaining and reviewing flyers and reviewing newspapers in order to report to the president on day care issues;- the Appellant had no set time of work, received no training, was not directly supervised, could come and go as needed, and her employment was only temporary insofar as it could be terminated at any time depending on the owner's health;- for the seven weeks prior to the relevant period the Appellant was employed by the Payor Silverstone and worked on a part time basis (16 hours/week) performing essentially the same duties performed on a full time basis at the Payor Twin Towers during the relevant period;- the Appellant's unemployment insurance benefits expired on January 22, 1994; and- no income tax was deducted from the Appellant's pay during the relevant period since the Payor Twin Towers' accountant knew ahead of time that no tax would be payable. [10] On the basis of these presumptions of fact, the Respondent made the following arguments:- the decision to hire the Appellant on a full time basis to perform the same duties she performed with the Payor Silverstone on a part time basis is indicative of a non-arm's length contract of employment;- while the Appellant and the Payor Twin Towers were not related they were not, in fact, dealing with each other at arm's length within the meaning of paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Act;- in arm's length employment, an employee would have been paid only for hours worked and not on a flat salary basis;- the purported engagement of the Appellant by the Payor Twin Towers during the relevant period allowed the Appellant to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits and was not based on any business consideration or need;- there was no contract of service between the Appellant and the Payor Twin Towers; and- having regard to all the circumstances of the employment, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, it is not reasonable to conclude that the Appellant and the Payor Twin Towers would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length. ...

No exhaustive list has been compiled and perhaps no exhaustive list can be compiled of considerations which are relevant in determining that question, nor can strict rules be laid down as to the relative weight which the various considerations should carry in particular cases. ...

He stated that with respect to sales the crushed rock was weighed at the quarry and that information was forwarded to Swan River where his sister prepared and sent out bills. [7] Lawrence said that he at no time approached anyone to buy the quarry from him and told no one that he wanted "to get rid of" the quarry because he had always intended to operate same. [8] On May 1, 1991, Lawrence sold the north-west quarter of the subject property to Concrete at an adjusted cost base of $10,000 and a total consideration of $400,000. ... Also, on May 1, 1991, Lawrence sold the remainder of the property, the north-east quarter section, to Selkirk Quarries at an adjusted cost base of $50,000 for a total consideration of $150,000. [9] Concrete advertised in a number of journals as Selkirk Limestone Quarries giving its address, telephone numbers and hours of operation, including the following words FOR PICKUP & DELIVERY. ...