Search - consideration

A further argument advanced by the appellant was that because there was a loan agreement signed with the bank by the appellant, there was valuable consideration for any transfer that was made and that the consideration for such transfer was $7,500. ... On the question of consideration the respondent argues that there was none. ... She gave no consideration. Insofar as the bank documentation is concerned, the respondent says it is confusing, inconsistent and inconclusive. ...

In paying the $70,000 dividend Référium did in fact wish to pay a dividend, not to pay money in consideration of services rendered. ... I would also add that when an employer pays money in consideration of services rendered by an employee it is salary. ... As I conclude that the sum of $70,000 was paid as a dividend and was not paid for consideration, I have no choice but to uphold the assessment. ...

The appellants claim that their shares of Bethex were worth considerably more than the consideration they received. ... They claim that they gave up those rights in consideration for a certain compensation, that compensation representing the damages for the premature cancellation of their option rights. ... The fact that a certain compensation is paid in consideration of such disposition shows that the person to whom that disposition was made, and who paid for it, attributed a value to it and wished to acquire it. ...

The respondent contends that the assessment is valid in that it is limited to the amount of the benefit received by the appellant at the time of the transfer, assuming that the consideration given, as the appellant assumed half of the mortgaged debt of $83,885, that is an amount of $41,942.50, is worth $13,057.50 less than half of the value of $110,000 assigned to the property transferred, that is an amount of $55,000. 4 Claude Hamel assigned his assets on July 7, 1993, and was automatically discharged from this first bankruptcy on April 7, 1994. 5 Counsel for the appellant claimed first that the undertaking to assume her spouse's portion of the mortgaged debt at the time the residence was transferred was not the only consideration given by the appellant at the time of the transfer. ... Thus, he said, the total value of the consideration for the transfer exceeded the value of the half of the property transferred so that section 160 of the Act did not apply in the circumstances. 17 Counsel for the appellant claimed that the agreement between the parties on this matter did not constitute a counter-letter since there was no simulation as to the nature of the transaction. Although the agreement was not mentioned in the notarized contract witnessing the transfer, in his view, it nevertheless completed the contract since it was supported by commencement of proof in writing of the additional loan taken out by the appellant and the payment of her spouse's personal debts to the Caisse. 18 Counsel for the respondent claimed for his part that there was indeed a simulation as to the consideration for the transfer of one-half of the property by Mr. ...

It is common ground that a person who pays consideration for a taxable supply made in the course of a business activity is required to pay GST at the rate of 5% (formerly 7%) of the value of the consideration. ... The section 3.01(a) payments were subject to GST only if they were consideration for a taxable supply by Costco ... He went on to consider in the alternative whether, if he was wrong on the main point and the section 3.01(a) payments were consideration for a supply by Costco, they were consideration for a taxable supply or an exempt supply. ...

This notarized contract indicates that the [translation] "transfer is made for no consideration and final discharge is given by the transferor" and that the value of the consideration is zero dollars. ... At the time of the transfer on February 11, 2002, the appellant gave no consideration. ... The transfer deed clearly states that no consideration was given and the evidence does not show that the amounts paid several months later were so paid as consideration for the transfer ...

There are four requisites to the validity of a contract: Parties legally capable of contracting; Their consent legally given; Something which forms the object of the contract; A lawful cause or consideration. ... A contract without a consideration, or with an unlawful consideration has no effect; but it is not the less valid though the consideration be not expressed or be incorrectly expressed in the writing which is evidence of the contract. ... The consideration is unlawful when it is prohibited by law, or is contrary to good morals or public order. ...

  (2) Where a particular person has charged to, or collected from, another person tax under Division II calculated on the consideration or a part thereof for a supply and, for any reason, the consideration or part is subsequently reduced, the particular person may, in or within four years after the end of the reporting period of the particular person in which the consideration was so reduced,   (a) where tax calculated on the consideration or part was charged but not collected, adjust the amount of tax charged by subtracting the portion of the tax that was calculated on the amount by which the consideration or part was so reduced; and   (b) where the tax calculated on the consideration or part was collected, refund or credit to that other person the portion of the tax that was calculated on the amount by which the consideration or part was so reduced ...

         (1)            Where a particular person has charged to, or collected from, another person an amount as or on account of tax under Division II in excess of the tax under that Division that was collectible by the particular person from the other person, the particular person may, within two years after the day the amount was so charged or collected, (a)            where the excess amount was charged but not collected, adjust the amount of tax charged; and (b)            where the excess amount was collected, refund or credit the excess amount to that other person. (2)           Where a particular person has charged to, or collected from, another person tax under Division II calculated on the consideration or a part thereof for a supply and, for any reason, the consideration or part is subsequently reduced, the particular person may, in or within four years after the end of the reporting period of the particular person in which the consideration was so reduced, (a)            where tax calculated on the consideration or part was charged but not collected, adjust the amount of tax charged by subtracting the portion of the tax that was calculated on the amount by which the consideration or part was so reduced; and (b)           where the tax calculated on the consideration or part was collected, refund or credit to that other person the portion of the tax that was calculated on the amount by which the consideration or part was so reduced. (3)           Where a particular person adjusts, refunds or credits an amount in favour of, or to, another person in accordance with subsection (1) or (2), the following rules apply: (a)            the particular person shall, within a reasonable time, issue to the other person a credit note, containing prescribed information, for the amount of the adjustment, refund or credit, unless the other person issues a debit note, containing prescribed information, for the amount; (b)           the amount may be deducted in determining the net tax of the particular person for the reporting period of the particular person in which the credit note is issued to the other person or the debit note is received by the particular person, to the extent that the amount has been included in determining the net tax for the reporting period or a preceding reporting period of the particular person; and (c)           the amount shall be added in determining the net tax of the other person for the reporting period of the other person in which the debit note is issued to the particular person or the credit note is received by the other person, to the extent that the amount has been included in determining an input tax credit claimed by the other person in a return filed for the reporting period or a preceding reporting period of the other person. (4)           This section does not apply in circumstances in which section 161 or 176 applies. [7]            The premise of the GST is that GST collected by the Appellant is trust money. ...

The facts surrounding the submission of this application are not being contested; rather, what is in dispute is their characterization for the purposes of the exercise of the Court’s power of re-consideration. ... The development described below occurred in the course of Beaudry J.’s consideration of the case, without the attorneys involved informing the Federal Court ... At most, he agreed in 2008 to postpone consideration of the objections relating to Mr.  ...