Search - consideration

He estimated his total investment at approximately $285,000, of which $200,000 was for the purchase of 200,000 shares. [9]      The Respondent submitted that the Appellant had not shown that he had paid the $200,000 consideration for the shares but there was sufficient documentary evidence combined with credible oral evidence from the Appellant to convince me that he did pay the amounts in question. ... The Appellant also presented a receipt signed by him and given to CAPC for the $1 consideration. ...

After a consideration of the factors in subsection 147(3) of the Rules and the facts in these appeals, I am satisfied that costs should not be awarded to the Appellants in excess of the tariff. ... The Appellants provided qualified answers to the request to admit and it was not until the twelfth day of the hearing that the Respondent’s request to admit was submitted to the court. [17]          In view of the above considerations, I am not persuaded to exercise my discretion to award the Appellants costs in excess of the tariff. ...

The auditor took into consideration all the submissions provided by the appellant. ... The loan contracted from Corporation Financière Household Inc. in the amount of $8,971.95 to finance the purchase price continued to be included in the appellant’s liabilities as there was a receipt of $7,500 as consideration. ...

  [8]      Exhibit R-4 is an undated invoice from the Appellant to Wrapped Apps which states:   In consideration for all outstanding invoices from 1259066 Ontario Ltd. to Wrapped Apps Corp. for work performed prior to June 1, 2003. ... The text of the letter reads:   Reference: Outstanding invoices   As per your recent request, this letter will serve to confirm that as of FY2003, Wrapped Apps Corporation, in consideration for a payment of $7,680.00 ($7,177.57 + $502.43 GST), has cancelled all outstanding invoices from 1259066 Ontario Ltd. for all work performed prior to June 1, 2003, totaling $78,803. ...

In fact, the Minister was satisfied that it was 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, in light of the following facts:   (a)                 The Payor was incorporated on January 1, 2004; (admitted)   (b)                The Payor's business has existed since 1996, when Alphonse Bernard operated his business on his own; (admitted)   (c)                 The Payor's business is an accounting firm; (admitted)   (d)                Alphonse and Claude Bernard have their accounting designations, while Hélène Lagacé has a great deal of accounting experience; (admitted)   (e)                 Alphonse and Claude Bernard are the Payor's only directors, and their sole duty is to approve the financial statements at the end of the year; (denied as written)   (f)                  Each shareholder manages his or her own client base; however, when it comes to purchasing, reorganization or hiring, all shareholders are consulted; (denied)   (g)                 The busiest time for the Payor is between February and the end of May, the income tax return filing period; (denied)   (h)                 The Payor's revenues have been rising steadily for a few years and reached $476,000 in December 2008; (admitted)   (i)                   The Payor employs between seven and eight persons, shareholders included; (admitted)   (j)                  The Payor's business hours, that is, those adhered to by the shareholders, are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. from Monday to Friday, whereas the employees' schedule is from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. for 35 hours a week; (denied as written)   (k)                The appellant was hired by the Payor for the first time during the period at issue; (admitted)   (l)                   The appellant has been retired since October 31, 2008, after 30 years of employment at the Centre de Santé et services sociaux de Baie-des-Chaleurs; (denied as written)   (m)               When she was hired, the appellant had a specific mandate to carry out, that is, to reorganize and standardize the professional staff filing system, update the boilerplate letters and act as a resource person for the secretary/receptionist, who was relatively inexperienced; (admitted)   (n)                 The appellant's work schedule was determined by Alphonse Bernard's because they travelled together; she therefore worked 40 hours a week even though she was paid for 35 hours; (admitted)   (o)                The hours worked by the appellant were not compiled because she was paid a fixed weekly salary and her duties were related to the administration of the business and not directly to operations; (denied as written)   (p)                The appellant's salary was determined at a consultation with shareholders, after a discussion with the appellant on the salary she earned at her former employer and her expectations; (admitted)   (q)                In determining the appellant's salary, the shareholders took into consideration the fact that the work mandate was very specific and limited in time and that once it was completed, the appellant's employment would be terminated and she would not be replaced; they also considered the appellant's experience in the field; (admitted)   (r)                  The appellant received an annual salary of $60,000, which is higher than the three shareholders' base salary without taking into account the bonuses they are paid; (denied as written)   (s)                 The appellant earned $2,307.69 in gross wages every two weeks; (admitted)   (t)                  According to Emploi‑Québec, the hourly wage in Quebec in 2006–2008 for an executive secretary ranged from $16 to $25.99; (denied)   (u)                 For 17 weeks of work, the appellant received $20,399, which corresponds to the annual salary ($20,255) received by an arm's length secretary for a full year of work; (admitted)   (v)                 The appellant was hired primarily to reorganize the filing system during the Payor's busiest period; (denied as written)   (w)               According to the Payor, the appellant's employment was terminated once her mandate was fully completed, whereas the appellant asserts that the termination of her employment corresponds to the fact that the "rush" was over and that she wanted to return to her retirement, despite the fact that the work was not finished because there were still improvements to be made, such as to the archiving policy; (denied as written) ... In consideration, the appellant's travel to her workplace cost her nothing, and she was offered lunch for free ...

They will also often be free to choose between an employment contract and independent contractor self‑employed status given the considerations of intention, control and the risk of profit and loss. [1] Truck drivers are commonly employees and are commonly independent contractors ...   [19]          A consideration of the parties’ intentions points wholly to independent contractor status ...

  [26]          In any event, in this case a consideration of the extent of control over the work leans in favour of independent contractor status.   ... Ownership of Tools   [28]          I do not find this a particularly helpful consideration in a case such as this. ...

Wilkins in his consideration of the facts, witnesses and documentation placed before him by the Respondent;   (b)              That in the alternative, the Appellant be allowed to present his case in regards to the availability of precise, proper and allowable deductions before this Honourable Court;   (c)               That the Appellant be allowed to present his full defence to the subject Notices of Assessment;   (d)              That the Court allow and direct the Respondent to present such affirmative facts as it can properly adduce at Law to support its assessment of gross negligence penalties as against the Appellant; and   (e)               The Court to strike from the Respondent’s Notice of Motion and Affidavit dated November 26, 2009, the paragraph pleading reliance on issue estoppel and abuse of court process pursuant to Rules 53 (a) and (b) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (SOR/90-688a);             And upon reading the pleadings filed herein and upon hearing what was alleged by the parties in Calgary, Alberta on January 26, 2010;           The Motion filed by the Respondent’s counsel is allowed and the Motion filed by the Appellant’s counsel is partially allowed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Order.   ... Wilkins in his consideration of the facts, witnesses and documentation placed before him by the Respondent;   2.         ...

Wilkins in his consideration of the facts, witnesses and documentation placed before him by the Respondent;   (b)              That in the alternative, the Appellant be allowed to present his case in regards to the availability of precise, proper and allowable deductions before this Honourable Court;   (c)               That the Appellant be allowed to present his full defence to the subject Notices of Assessment;   (d)              That the Court allow and direct the Respondent to present such affirmative facts as it can properly adduce at Law to support its assessment of gross negligence penalties as against the Appellant; and   (e)               The Court to strike from the Respondent’s Notice of Motion and Affidavit dated November 26, 2009, the paragraph pleading reliance on issue estoppel and abuse of court process pursuant to Rules 53 (a) and (b) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (SOR/90-688a);             And upon reading the pleadings filed herein and upon hearing what was alleged by the parties in Calgary, Alberta on January 26, 2010;           The Motion filed by the Respondent’s counsel is allowed and the Motion filed by the Appellant’s counsel is partially allowed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Order.     ... Wilkins in his consideration of the facts, witnesses and documentation placed before him by the Respondent;   2.         ...

  [4]      Maritime-Ontario contracts with third-party customers to move goods for consideration, plus GST ...   [19]     In general, GST is required to be collected on the value of consideration for a taxable supply (s. 221(1), s. 165(1)) ...