Search - consideration

Speaker, the basic objectives of the measures before the House for its consideration this afternoon are twofold: they are to protect the millions of jobs that today depend directly and indirectly on maintaining the international competitiveness of our vitally important manufacturing and processing industries.... ... In Nowsco and Halliburton, both supra, Urie J.A., for the Court, adopted a passage from the reasons of Reed J. in Halliburton in which she rejected the meaning based upon the common law distinction, opting instead for one based upon a literal construction of the word sale, such that any transfer of property manufactured by a taxpayer to a customer for a consideration, regardless of the nature of the contract between them, would amount to a sale within the meaning of the legislation. ... Based on that statement, counsel submitted that, in respect of category (d) activities, the taxpayer did use its equipment to manufacture components which it then placed in the customer's machinery in substitution for defective components, for a consideration. ...

Askin prepared memoranda of agreements made effective March 18, 1986 pursuant to which Clem Lamothe and Pauline Lamothe transferred all of their shares in Clem Industrial to the plaintiff in consideration for the issuance to them by the plaintiff of 1 Class A share for each share owned by them in Clem Industrial with each such Class A share having a redemption price of $4,150 and having a stated capital of $1 per share. 12. ... A gain of equal amount was inherent in the shares received by Clem Lamothe and Pauline Lamothe from the plaintiff in consideration for their shares in Clem Industrial. 14. ... Larry Sych effective January 30, 1987 at a consideration of $1 per share, and Mr. ...

Cette vente fut fait pour et en considération de la somme de $1,500,000 que l’appelante s’engageait à payer, hebdomadairement on mensuellement, sur une base de 314 pour-cent des ventes directes de l’appelante et ce jusqu’à parfait paiement de la somme totale ou de l’extinction du droit d’auteur. ... En d’autres mots, si Je comprends bien, le prix de $1,500,000 était basé sur des considérations qui n’étaient pas directement reliées avec la valeur de l’objet que vous vendiez mais c’était en considération de succession future. ...

In Stewart, above at para. 51, the Supreme Court of Canada, briefly touched upon the relevant considerations: Equating "source of income" with an activity undertaken "in pursuit of profit" accords with the traditional common law definition of "business", i.e., "anything which occupies the time and attention and labour of a man for the purpose of profit": Smith, supra, at p. 258; Terminal Dock, supra. ... Represented by Sylvio Thibeault 47 Dalhousie Street, Québec Hereinafter called "the Lessee" And Party of the Second Part         Sylvio Thibeault 47 Dalhousie Street, Québec, Quebec   G1K 8S3 Hereinafter called "the Lessor" Whereas the Lessee operates a business providing cruise packages intended for the general public; Whereas the Lessor is an individual who has developed solid expertise in the field and contributes to management and promotion, and owns a shipyard; In consideration of the foregoing statements, which form an integral part of the present contract and in consideration of the following statements, the parties covenant as follows: Object of the agreement: Lease of the Grand Charlevoix for a period of three (3) months commencing June 15 and ending September 10 The vessel shall remain available to promote the sale of this type of vessel and also as a prototype on trial. ...

I have consequently drawn a negative inference from this failure: either the documentation does not exist or, if it does exist, it is inconsistent with his testimony. [51]          As noted previously, the onus is on the Appellant to establish that he made the Cactus Cowboys Payments in consideration of services rendered by Cactus Cowboys. ... He decided that Cactus Cowboys should pay an amount to him as consideration for his legal services. He determined that approximately 15% of the amounts billed to his clients represented a reasonable consideration for his legal services. ...

The Court received submissions from both, with the Appellant suggesting costs of $125,000 including a maximum of $25,000 for disbursements if I determine a lump sum is in order. [3]              The Appellant has requested, in its covering letter enclosing its cost submissions to the Court, that since it has appealed my decision, the issue of costs be held in abeyance and that this Court defer its consideration of the submissions pending disposition of the appeal. ... In paragraph 14 thereof, he stated: In the circumstances of this case, even had the application for increased costs been timely, the settlement offer relied upon does not constitute the type of settlement offer warranting consideration for the purposes of Rule 147(3)…nor, in my view, should it for the purposes of proposed Rule 147(3.1) if enacted as worded. [15]         In paragraph 15, Boyle J. commented that “the only basis for the appellant’s request for increased costs set out in the Notice of Motion is the settlement offer.” ... (d)     I have already discussed the offer of settlement of the Respondent and my view is that it meets the threshold of consideration for substantial indemnity. ...

As Justice Rennie explained, BIMIC’s scheme crossed over from being a multi-level marketing plan into being a pyramid scheme because the scheme required that “a participant pay consideration for the right to receive compensation for the recruitment of others who give consideration for the same right, into the plan”. [7] He stated that “[i]n legitimate multi-level marketing schemes, commissions are paid upon the sale of products, not after the recruitment of others and the completion of a corporate ladder”. [8] Justice Rennie’s conclusions are consistent with the evidence before me. [10]         Despite all of the foregoing, the Respondent maintains that BIMIC was a multi-level marketing company that was selling goods and services, that the participants in the scheme were earning commissions for making sales and that the money paid by the participants to join a pyramid was paid to purchase goods and services from BIMIC for personal use. ... He or she certainly would not have lent them to other participants for no consideration. [20]         If Ms. ...

They should not have been within the Minister's consideration. It is hard to know what effect they had upon the determination, prejudicial or otherwise.- Item (n): The suggestion in the words "regardless of the nature and importance of the work" is that the Appellants were being paid even if they did nothing. ... Subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act specifically requires consideration to be given to the remuneration paid and the nature and importance of the work amongst other things. ... That however was not a consideration of the other employees. It is also not clear to the Court what part the salaries paid to the wives played or what work they actually did for the company. ...

The Appellant's wife agreed to give up her employment elsewhere in the Town of Port Elgin to manage the racquet club for no consideration but they would not open the banquet facility. Also, the Appellant would work two or three evenings a week in the bar at the club for no consideration to reduce the operating costs. [17]          With his own capital, the Appellant caused the building to be repaired in the last two months of 1997 and the early months of 1998, and the facility was reopened for business. ... In any event, the total consideration was $400,000. [20]          That is the history of the racquet sports facility in Port Elgin and the way it was operated over the years. ...

However I do think he was providing some guidance as to the practical considerations to be taken into account by a Tax Court judge in exercising discretion in these cases ...   …   17        The relevant considerations are, first, that the taxable benefits at issue are $6,348.00 for the year 2000 and $4,801.00 for the year 2001. ... This is not a case in which the Minister's error in not referring to paragraph 6(1)(l) in the original Reply was self-evident and in respect of which, the appellant should have anticipated an amendment.   20        Having regard to these considerations, I would exercise my discretion to refuse to allow the amendment to add paragraph 6(1)(l) of the Income Tax Act to the Minister's Reply in the Tax Court. ...