Search - consideration

For the purposes of this Act, money constitutes property;   (c)        at the time the property was transferred to the Appellant, the fair market value of the property so transferred was $126,000;   (d)        the Appellant provided no consideration for the property transferred from the Transferor; and   (e)        at the time the Transferor transferred property to the Appellant, the Transferor was liable to pay tax, penalty and interest amounting to $20,204.23.   10.       ...   [3]    With respect to the Minister’s assumption in paragraph 6(e) of the Reply that the Appellant gave no consideration for the $126,000, the Appellant states in the Notice of Appeal as follows:   I don’t believe I owe any money because the money that I received was to pay back my relatives that I had borrowed money from for the business starting in 1984. ... Further, there was no satisfactory evidence that the Appellant gave consideration for the transfer of $126,000 or that the Corporation owed the Appellant any monies. ...

  [3]              The conditions to be met for subsection 325(1) of the Act to apply are the following:   i)                    there must be a transfer of property,   ii)                 the transferor and transferee must not be dealing at arm’s length,   iii)               there must be no consideration or inadequate consideration flowing from the transferee to the transferor, and   iv)               the transferor must be liable to pay an amount under the Act for the reporting period that includes the time at which the property was transferred or any preceding reporting period ...   [5]              I wish to point out immediately that the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) did not allege in the Reply to the Notice of Appeal that there was no consideration or inadequate consideration flowing from the appellants to the Corporation. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the burden of proof regarding consideration rested on the respondent ...

Subsequent to the filing of the statement of defence certain documents incidental to the transfer of the property were eventually produced, such as a chattel mortgage and a promissory note as a consideration for a sale. ... Under section 3 section 2 (which provides that a conveyance made to defeat creditord is void as against such persons and their assigns) does not apply to property conveyed upon good consideration and bona fide to a person without knowledge at the time of the conveyance of the intention to defraud. Thus where a conveyance is made upon good consideration the onus is to show the fraudulent intent of both parties to the conveyance. ...

One consideration was that his wife could use the house when visiting the family living in the area of North Bay. ... The third consideration had to do with the point that he could decide to sell the house at an appropriate time, taking into account market conditions. ... These personal considerations had to do perhaps primarily with the uncertainty of his new job in British Columbia. ...

The issue in question is a very narrow one and deals with what in fact was the consideration received by the appellant for the sale of two parcels of land that it had assembled for shopping centre purposes in St Hyacinthe, Quebec. The appellant treats the total consideration received as the purchase price of the land and claims a reserve for the greater portion under section 85B of the Income Tax Act as it then was. ... I find corroboration for my belief in this result in the fact that the consideration shown in the deed was $375,000 for the land. ...

By agreement dated March 13, 1963, made between Labow Haynes Company Inc et al and Ronald Kirkby, the appellant agreed to sell his 1,500 class “A” shares of PLH Ltd (formerly Everne) in consideration of $1 and other good and valuable consideration. ... Is the $37,500, payable over a period of years by PLH Ltd to the appellant, consideration for the sale of 1,500 class “A” shares of PLH Ltd and as such a non-taxable receipt? ... In my opinion, the settlement of the $171,500 indebtedness was a consideration for the surrender of the shares for $1. ...

The onus is on the appellant executors to establish that the agreement was actually in effect as of January 1, 1953, the date when consideration for the contract began to run. ... can only find that part of the consideration was past consideration. There is no doubt, however, that the contract was in existence some time prior to the time the deceased discussed his will with his brother John, which would be prior to its execution in April 1960. ... The payments of $25,000 to Walter and George, brothers of the deceased, are partial gifts, as past consideration is no consideration. ...

The relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, ce. 148, are as follows: “20. (1) Where depreciable property of a taxpayer of a prescribed class has, in a taxation year, been disposed of and the proceeds of disposition exceed the undepreciated capital cost to him of depreciable property of that class immediately before the disposition, the lesser of (a) the amount of the excess, or (b) the amount that the excess would be if the property had been disposed of for the capital cost thereof to the taxpayer, shall be included in computing his income for the year. (6) 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 issue in the appeal is whether the amount of $172,300 is that part of the total amount of $450,000, which the appellant received from the Toronto Transit Commission, that can reasonably be regarded as being the consideration for the disposition of the appellant’s buses which were its depreciable property. ... In my opinion, the amount of $172,300 can reasonably be regarded as being the consideration for the disposition of the buses, within the meaning of Section 20(6) (g) of the Act. ...

There is no evidence before me that the Appellant made supplies for no consideration or nominal consideration. As a result, any supplies that it made that were not taxable supplies made for consideration were exempt supplies made for consideration. [144]    Subparagraph 141.01(2)(b)(ii) does not apply to the fact situation before me. ... The test is the extent to which the specific piece of land was acquired or used for the purpose of making taxable supplies for consideration. ...

:—On February 6, 1932, the appellant sold to Wilder Norris Limited certain assets for the following consideration:— 1. ... I therefore turn to a consideration of the authorities. In Secretary of State v. ... Whether or not they were capital sums had to be determined by a consideration of the substance of the transaction. ...