Search - consideration

These subparagraphs read as follows:           [TRANSLATION] (a)         the facts admitted above; (b)         the appellant is a registrant for the purposes of Part IX of the ETA; (c)         the appellant operates a jewellery store; (d)         the appellant filed its net tax returns quarterly during the period at issue; (e)         the quarterly periods of the appellant correspond to calendar quarters; (f)          the appellant did not keep any accounting records in an appropriate form and with relevant information so that its obligations and responsibilities under the provisions of Part IX of the ETA during the period at issue could be determined; (g)         accounting documents explaining or justifying the GST and ITC amounts used in calculating net tax and entered on the quarterly net tax returns were not retained by the appellant; (h)         all the supplies made by the appellant in the context of the commercial activities of the business which the appellant operated during the period at issue constituted taxable supplies for which tax at the rate of 7% on the value of the consideration for the supply was payable by the recipients to the appellant, which was required to collect that tax; (i)          the appellant recorded in its books for the period at issue an amount of $128,770.57 as GST that it collected or that was collectible; (j)          the appellant, in the calculation of its net tax for the period at issue, reported to the Minister an amount of $124,582.89 as GST collected or collectible; (k)         the difference, namely $4,187.68 ($128,770.57- $124,582.89), constitutes GST collected or collectible by the appellant which it did not include in the calculation of its net tax which it reported to the Minister for the period at issue; (l)          with regard to the amount of $4,187.68 mentioned in the previous sub-paragraph, the Minister made a number of adjustments to it, namely a first group of adjustments resulting in a total reduction of $4,444.47 granted by the Minister to correct errors committed by the appellant in entering the GST collected or collectible, and a second group of adjustments totalling a net increase of $1,900.26 ($1,906.61- $6.35) to take into account the excess GST included by the appellant in calculating its net reported tax during various reporting periods included in the period in question, despite the fact that it had indeed duly entered the tax, and the Minister had taken note of it but failed to take it into account in making the assessment and so assessed only an amount of $1,643.47 ($4,187.68- $4,444.47 + $1,900.26); (m)        the appellant acquired taxable supplies in the form of goods and services for consumption, use or supply in the context of its business activities during the period at issue, for which supplies the GST was paid or payable by the appellant to the suppliers; (n)         the appellant entered as ITCs in its accounting records for the period at issue an amount of $76,958.63 in GST which it thus had apparently paid or which would thus have been payable; (o)         the appellant claimed, and subsequently obtained, an ITC of $122,379.36 in calculating its net tax which it reported to the Minister for the period at issue; (p)         the difference, namely $45,420.73 ($122,379.36- $76,958.63), was claimed and obtained in excess or by mistake, according to the information available in the accounting records of the appellant; (q)         in respect of the amount of $45,420.73 mentioned in the previous subparagraph, the Minister made an initial adjustment to it, namely, a reduction of $1,718.50 representing an additional ITC amount granted by the Minister, and a second adjustment, namely, an increase of $263.20 representing ITCs which the appellant had forgotten to claim, despite the fact that it had indeed duly entered them, and the Minister had taken note from them but failed to take them into account in making the assessment and so assessed only an amount of $43,965.43 ($45,420.73- $1,718.50 + $263.20); (r)         in addition to the foregoing, the Minister granted the appellant additional ITCs which had not been entered in its accounting records and which accordingly could not have been claimed in full knowledge of the facts in calculating its net tax that it reported to the Minister, which amounted to $12,330.05 at the time the initial assessment was made (reference to paragraphs 10 and 14 above), to which was added an amount of $2,484.65 when the reassessment was made, namely the one at issue (reference to paragraphs 17, 20 and 21 above); (s)         the ITCs claimed and obtained by the appellant in excess, or as a result of an error in the calculation of its net tax for the period at issue, and which were assessed, total $29,159.73 ($43,965.43- $12,330.05- $2,484.65) since the appellant did not provide the Minister, when required to do so, with sufficient information, including prescribed information, to establish the said amount; (t)          the appellant knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence in the carrying out of a duty or obligation imposed by or under Part IX of the ETA, made a false statement or omission in his net tax returns for the period at issue in that: i.        ... Beaupré to show where the invoice had been taken into consideration in his calculations relating to the ITCs. [15]     The first invoice is in the name of L.M. and is for an amount of $525. ... Blanchette had actually taken into consideration the amounts received from Kitco, since Mr. ...

Who invested that amount and what was the consideration?   You'd have to talk to the accountant about that, everything concerning the incorporation.   On June 20, 2001, the sum of $100 was invested in your business under the heading "Shares of the Three Shareholders"; who invested that amount and what was the consideration?   ...   [33]     In addition to energetically contending that owning a truck-rental business had little or no impact on his work as a fisherman, the Appellant also stated his main grievance with and criticism of the quality of the investigation and analysis work, that the particular, indeed even unique, situation prevailing on Anticosti Island had not been taken into consideration. ...

These factors should then be analyzed to determine what weight they should be given in identifying the location of the property, in light of three considerations:  (1) the purpose of the exemption under the Indian Act; (2) the type of property in question; and (3) the nature of the taxation of that property.  ... In the context of the exemption from taxation in the Indian Act, there are three important considerations: the purpose of the exemption; the character of the property in question; and the incidence of taxation upon that property.  ... In Sero and Frazer, Sharlow J.A. also took into consideration some criticisms about Recalma, but it did not retain any that would change her finding that the investment income was not situated on a reserve. ...

Desjardins asked the Appellant to sign a subscription letter for 170 Class A shares in the share capital of Usitech in consideration of $170,000 (Exhibit A‑2). ... L'Écuyer noticed that a Usitech share certificate had been issued in 1996 in consideration of $170,000, but that the Appellant's name was not entered in the company's minute book. ... The subscription letter signed by the Appellant is for 170 Class A shares of Usitech and the total consideration is $170,000 (Exhibit A‑2). ...

., speaking for the majority of the Court said at p. 5084: With respect, I do not agree that Moldowan suggests disjunctive consideration of pertinent factors in quite the way the learned trial judge has dealt with them. ... The same policy considerations allow for greater weight to be placed on the capital and time factors under section 31 of the Act, while less weight is given to profitability. ... In future, those insisting on obtaining tax relief in circumstances approaching those under consideration should do so through legislative channels and not through the Tax Court of Canada. ...

.; n)          the eligible rental expenses in 1995 are $66,309; o)          on August 21, 1996, the Appellant sold the building located 38-40 Poirier, Lac Duffault; p)          the Appellant suffered a deductible capital loss of $691 as a result of this sale; q)          on November 29, 1996, the Appellant sold the building located at 53 Matapédia Street, Rouyn-Noranda; r)           the Appellant made a taxable capital gain of $431 on the sale of the land in this transaction; s)          the building itself was a depreciable asset; t)           the loss of $6,055 on the disposition of this building is not eligible; u)          eligible rental expenses in 1996 are $12,823; v)          the Minister calculated the Appellant's taxable capital gain at $61,073 and $18,570 for the 1995 and 1996 taxation years respectively; w)         the Minister took into account a non-capital loss of $50,915 for the 1993 taxation year; x)          the loss cited in the previous paragraph was taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the Appellant's taxable income for the 1995 taxation year; y)          the Appellant had a net capital loss of $18,644 in 1988; z)          the Appellant had a net capital loss of $22,986 in 1990; aa)        the Appellant had a net capital loss of $13,813 in 1991; bb)        the net capital losses cited in paragraph y), z) and aa) were taken into consideration for the purposes of calculating the Appellant's taxable income for the 1995 taxation year. ... The Tax Court's consideration of the matter will be on the basis of the evidence adduced in the Tax Court, even if that evidence was not before the Minister when he made his assessment. ...

He decided to just pass his shares over to Eagle for no consideration at a time when Riverside owned three lots, an older excavator and now had the refund amount of $45,359.85 sitting in its account. ... Although there is no clear evidence of the additional $23,000.00 being paid by Brunswick to the Appellant, it is clearly a debt created by the company to the Appellant for no consideration and therefore subsection 15(1) is engaged and the benefit is considered conferred. [25]     The Minister's assessment of the shareholder benefit under subsection 15(1) is based on the premise that the Appellant set up a scheme whereby an input tax credit based on a false claim filed by Riverside was transferred from Riverside to Brunswick through Eagle and eventually dispersed to the Appellant via payment of shareholder loans. ... Ferrel, 99 DTC 5111 (F.C.A.). [37]     There was no evidence before me which would indicate whether or not Brunswick paid income tax on the $7,000.00 benefit which it received when its debt to Eagle was paid for nil consideration. ...

Rather, the Act contains both objective elements- embodied in the reasonable person language- and subjective elements- inherent in individual considerations like "skill" and the idea of "comparable circumstances". ... Corsano et al, 99 DTC 5658, Noël J.A. writing for the Federal Court of Appeal stated in paragraph 35: [35] Fourth, in assessing the respondent's due diligence, the Tax Court judge took in consideration the fact that the directors were satisfied that the asset values of the Corporation would be sufficient to meet the claims of all creditors, including Revenue Canada. With respect, this is an irrelevant consideration. The obligation on the directors is to prevent a failure, not to condone it systematically, as the respondents did, in the hope of eventually correcting it because there would be enough money in the end to pay all the creditors. [31]     Having regard to the defence of "due diligence", it is important for the Appellant, as director, to prove what he did or tried to do to prevent any corporate failure to withhold and remit source deductions. ...

Dawson can, with the help of the Book, evaluate a boat on the basis of the information provided, and then make adjustments for new equipment added and further take into consideration factors such as the condition of the boat, load hours, etc. ... The Sabre's quality and construction were factors taken into consideration by adding seven per cent to the average value of those eight boats to arrive at a value of $14,700 for the appellant's boat (see pages 157-61 of the transcript, where Mr. ... Dawson also said that the hours on a motor are not taken into consideration for sailboats as these do not have hour metres, unlike powerboats. ...

.'s capital account. [6] Any remaining capital account amount credited to Ontario Inc. was offset with a.25% interest in the restructured limited partnership which interest was transferred for nominal consideration to the new general partner. [18]     I note at this point that the restructuring in January of 1992 was required as the limited partnership was in financial difficulty. [7] The development of the convention centre that included a banquet facility and was ultimately to include a hotel complex was not proceeding as planned and to the extent that it was up and running it was not making money. ... As well, additional limited partnership units were issued to the new investor for nominal consideration with the result being that he owned 50% of the outstanding limited partnership interests. ... Different corporate structures might presumably require different considerations but this was not addressed at the hearing. ...