Search - consideration

In as much as I am empowered to do so, I suggest that the amount is in fact interest and recommend that the Appellant's application under the fairness package be given careful consideration. [14]     In conclusion, the 2002 taxation year is not properly before the Court and the purported appeal is quashed, With respect to the 2003 taxation year, I accept the evidence of the Respondent's witness and have been given no reason not to conclude that Schedule A is accurate. ... This had not been taken into consideration and the Appellant made no representations. ...

Its purpose is set out in subsection 5(7): 5.(7) The purpose of this section is to recognize that child care, household management and financial provision are the joint responsibilities of the spouses and that inherent in the marital relationship there is equal contribution, whether financial or otherwise, by the spouses to the assumption of these responsibilities, entitling each spouse to the equalization of the net family properties, subject only to the equitable considerations set out in subsection (6). ... Dand had of satisfying this debt was his pension fund; had he had another source of funds, given his past unreliability in paying spousal support and the underlying objective of the Family Law Act to encourage former spouses to get on with their separate lives, I have no doubt that the Court would have directed payment from that source. [12]     There was no clear evidence before me as to what, if any, consideration was given to the tax consequences of ordering payment of the equalization payment directly from the Toronto Police Benefit Fund. ...

  [16]     I do not accept the Respondent's argument that the payments to Bobsan are really consideration for advice given and are not consideration for the acquisition of the right to acquire shares. ...

CHILD SUPPORT               The husband and wife acknowledge that:                                     (a)        there is presently an Order of the Ontario Court (Family Division) in Court File No. 1194/97 requiring the husband to pay to the wife total support for the aforesaid children in the amount of $600 per month;                                                 (b)        there are arrears of support under the aforesaid support Order and that, in consideration of the following, the wife agrees to an Order rescinding any and all such support arrears;                           (c)        the parties shall execute the necessary documentation to withdraw the enforcement of the husband's child support obligation from the Family Responsibility Office;                           (d)        that the husband's child support obligation, pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and based on his 1998 gross income of $29,429.14, is $556 per month;                           (e)        the husband and wife have agreed that there is owing by the wife to the husband the sum of $36,000 as at July 9, 1999. ... There is equally no question that the amount agreed to formed part of the consideration paid so as to release the Appellant from any future obligations. … {Emphasis added} In such a case obviously, the very character of the payments is altered and thus the lump sum payments in such circumstances are not deductible ...

" [4]      The facts on which the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") based his assessment are set out at paragraph 7 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal (the AReply@) and read as follows: (a)         during the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, the Appellant engaged in business activities in the audio-visual and mobile disco field; (b)         the 1997, 1998 and 1999 taxation years were subjected to a tax audit by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA); (c)         the auditor of the Minister, applying the net worth method, identified additional sales in the following amounts: Taxation year Additional sales 1997 $ 7,987 1998 $ 9,805 1999 $ 8,682 (d)         these additional sales were added to the turnover originally reported by the Appellant to obtain the following total business income: Year Reported business income Additional income Total business income 1997 $ 29,817 $ 7,987 $ 37,804 1998 $ 24,932 $ 9,805 $ 34,737 1999 $ 26,536 $ 8,682 $ 34,523 e)          with regard to the GST, the Appellant made taxable supplies for considerations totalling the following amounts for the period from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2000, namely the period at issue: Year Consideration GST Total 1998 $ 34,737.00 $ 2,431.59 $ 37,168.59 1999 $ 34,523.00 $ 2,416.61 $ 36,939.61 2000 $ 28,954.90 $ 2,026.43 $ 30,981.43 (f)          the Minister registered the Appellant with effect from January 1, 1998; (g)         the Minister approved the use by the Appellant of the "quick method" for calculating net tax and for this purpose the amount that the Appellant should have remitted for each period was determined as follows: Year Amount 1998 $ 1,558.43 1999 $ 1,546.98 2000 $ 1,249.09 Total $ 4,354.50 (h)         the Appellant did not retain his supporting documentation and did not keep adequate books. [5]      The Appellant is a sound technician and musician. ...

  [14]     Only the work, the duration and the remuneration were taken into account; the context, the content and certain elements that essentially resulted from the non‑arm's‑length dealings were not given the requisite attention and consideration. ...   [18]     Since the consideration and analysis failed to take a number of very important factors into account, and, especially, since the finding is in no way a reflection of the entire set of facts that needed to be taken into account, the determination is, having regard to the circumstances, neither reasonable nor consistent. ...

In the first place, we are somewhat uncertain and at the very most can contemplate taking only two of these accounts into consideration. ... Nor was this error known to the federal auditor at the time of the assessment. [27]     In my view, these factors, and especially the last one relating to knowledge at the time of the assessment, prevent me from agreeing to take the error into consideration. ...

While the settlement agreed to has no influence on my decision, I see no reason not to take the agreed facts into consideration. [7]      The Appellant and the Respondent provided lengthy written submissions, and both relied on the application of the commonly referred to tests of control, ownership of tools, chance of profit or risk of loss, and integration, set out in Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v. ... As a result of one complaint, ABCO fired the Appellant, as stated earlier. [13]     The settlement and agreed facts before the Employment Standards Branch are not binding on me, but they are to be given consideration. ...

For the purposes of this Part, where in the course of a business of making supplies of real property a person renovates or alters a residential complex of the person and the renovation or alteration is not a substantial renovation, the person shall be deemed (a)         to have made and received a taxable supply, at the earlier of the time the renovation is substantially completed and the time ownership of the complex is transferred, for consideration equal to the total of all amounts each of which is an amount in respect of the renovation or alteration (other than the amount of consideration that was paid or payable by the person for a financial service or for any property or service in respect of which the person is required to pay tax) that would be included in determining the adjusted cost base to the person of the complex for the purposes of the Income Tax Act if the complex were capital property of the person and the person were a taxpayer under that Act; and (b)         to have paid as a recipient and to have collected as a supplier, at that time, tax in respect of the supply, calculated on the total determined under paragraph (a). [9]      In summary, the former attic is subject to GST as a substantial renovation as conceded by the Appellant and the remaining six units are subject to GST pursuant to section 192. [10]     This matter is referred to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment accordingly. [11]     There is no order as to costs. ...

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. ...