Search - consideration

The contract itself indicated that the sale was made for a price of $1 and other good and valuable consideration as indicated in the offer of April 25, 1986. ... Charron who signed the notarial contract of June 2, 1986, in which it was mentioned that both the transferor and transferee set the value of the consideration for purposes of the transfer tax at $800,000. ... Cheque No. 1439 from the Servibec company, with the notations it contained, does however cast serious doubt on the statement that $1,000 bills were received in consideration, an initial clue tending to undermine the plausibility of the appellant’s position. ...

Unquestionably, the amount received by the Appellant represented consideration for his services rendered as a solicitor. ... Among other considerations, Mr. Taylor never referred to such an arrangement. lam fortified in this conclusion by the fact that when it was brought to his attention by Mr. ... Taylor in October 1991, I would be inclined to the view that it is improbable that the Appellant has only received $20,000.00 on account of the following considerations: I. ...

Initially, PC Bank did not charge CIBC GST on the consideration that it received for the supplies it made under the PCF Agreement. ... In addition, the Minister assessed PC Bank in respect of certain periods on the basis that PC Bank failed to collect and remit some of the GST on the consideration that it received from CIBC. ... However, it differs somewhat from a consideration of the possible application of issue estoppel in that the consideration is focused on preserving the integrity of the adjudicative process more so than on the status, motive or rights of the parties. [40] [Emphasis added.] ...

Indeed, under that first requirement, only the final consideration, whether the third party claim has any possible likelihood of success, is at issue between the parties. ... At paragraph 14 of Cold Lake, Justice Barnes lists these principles as follows, while noting that the Court should also give some consideration to the balance of convenience between the parties: Would the continuation of the action cause prejudice or injustice (not merely inconvenience or extra expense) to the defendant? ... Therefore, it is also far from clear that considerations of judicial economy would favour such a result. ...

That being the case, the consideration given for the transaction should be looked at. ... In this regard, I consider it useful to point out that the consideration for the upstairs premises was $3.84 a square foot at the end of the lease in December 1990. ... The principal tenant sublet the premises for which it was responsible for a consideration much higher than that set out in the original lease. ...

Against the backdrop of that standard, and having considered the parties’ respective written and oral submissions, I consider the following issues to represent an appropriate framework for the adjudication of these applications, including consideration of the Applicant’s principal arguments as captured in its articulation of the issues set out above: Is the Original Decision reasonable? To the extent they require consideration independent of the Original Decision, are the August Decisions reasonable? ... To the extent they require consideration independent of the Original Decision, are the August Decisions reasonable? ...

In order to entitle the successor corporation to the deduction it was imperative that the acquisition of the property of the predecessor by the successor be (a) in exchange for shares of the capital stock of the successor or (b) as a result of the distribution of such property to the successor upon the winding-up of the predecessor subsequently to the purchase of shares of the predecessor by the successor in consideration of shares of the successor. ... On November 30, 1960 the parent company, Sharpies Oil Corporation, acquired substantially all of the property of the appellant in consideration for the cancellation of a debt owing to it by the appellant. ... On that construction, if the transferee was a subsisting oil company it would, without any consideration therefor, obtain this valuable right in addition to the properties conveyed. ...

On January 26, 1965 they each sold their one-sixth share interest and Range Investments sold its two-thirds interest in Siebens Leaseholds Ltd. to Canadian Export Gas and Oil Ltd. in an arm’s length transaction and respondent assessed Siebens and McKinley on the amount received as consideration for their shares without taking into account the underlying cost of the assets of Siebens Leaseholds Ltd. in computing their profit on this sale of shares.* [1] Appellants Siebens and McKinley say that the sale of their shares constituted the realization of a capital investment and that the amount received was not income, and in the alternative that respondent failed to compute accurately appellants’ profit which arose cn the sale of their shares for the reason that it failed to take into consideration the underlying cost of the assets of Siebens Leaseholds Ltd. represented by those shares. ... The considerations prompting the transaction may be of such a business nature as to invest it with the character of an adventure in the nature of trade even without any intention of making a profit on the sale of the purchased commodity. ... While there is some force in respondent’s argument that it is not the Company w hich is being taxed here on its profit on the sale of the physical assets but merely the shareholders on their profit on the sale of the shares and that it is therefore only the cost of these shares to them which should be taken into consideration as a deduction, and wrong to take into consideration the financial statements of the company and to look behind the sale of the shares to calculate the profit on the sale of the properties, it is precisely because I have found that the sale of the shares was merely an alternative method of selling the properties that I have reached the conclusion that these profits are taxable. ...

My analysis begins with a consideration of the effect of subsection 81(1) of the Insurance Act. 13 At the outset of the oral hearing, this Court expressed the view to counsel for the parties that regardless of what may be the true legal effect of subsection 81(1) of the Insurance Act it could not by any stretch of the imagination be deemed to impose a charge on assets contained within the life fund. ... It is to this context that Dickson C.J. directed his remarks. 24 In my opinion, the comments of the former Chief Justice have no application to cases such as the one under consideration. ... In my opinion, there is simply no need to remit the matter to the Tax Court Judge for further consideration. ...

As the issues involved are identical in each year, I shall confine myself almost exclusively to a consideration of the appellant’s taxation year 1954. ... In a situation such as this, where the contract of sale includes tangibles and intangibles one or more of which may or may not constitute depreciable property as defined in Section 20(5) (a) of the Act supra and where the parties have failed to set out in the deed of sale the amount expended on each of any of such items, in my opinion the Court is confronted with a special case such as described in Section 20(6) (g) of the Act, which provides: “ (6) [Special cases.I—For the purpose of this section and regulations made under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11, the following rules apply: (g) where an amount can reasonably be regarded as being in part the consideration for disposition of depreciable property of a taxpayer of a prescribed class and as being in part consideration for something else, the part of the amount that can reasonably be regarded as being the consideration for such disposition shall be deemed to be the proceeds of disposition of depreciable property of that class irrespective of the form or legal effect of the contract or agreement; and the person to whom the depreciable property was disposed of shall be deemed to have acquired the property at a capital cost to him equal to the same part of that amount;” The task of leading evidence which will serve to, figuratively, separate the wheat from the chaff and, also, determine what amount can be reasonably regarded as the sale price of the respective assets concerned is admittedly a difficult one. ... Thus, if the appellant’s aforesaid statement be accepted, the only remaining item requiring consideration is the reasonableness or otherwise of the capital cost of $58,500 which he attributed to his lease. ...