Search - consideration

. — in 1976 the Appellant disposed of an option to lease the gas bar situated on the (Merivale) parcel of land for a consideration of $50,000.00. and relied, inter alia, upon sections 3, 40(1), 40(2)(b) and 54(g) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63 as amended and sections 24 and 26 of the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971. ... There was no evidence presented that any Government permits or licences associated with the gas bar business were particularly difficult to obtain, or that their existence, transfer or renewal was a major consideration to either party in 1974 or 1976. ... I have given very serious consideration to the fact that this parcel of less than two acres claimed by the appellant as his “principal residence” was the remaining portion of the total original 27-acre farm, used for many years by the taxpayer in his mind for exactly the purpose attributed to it in 1974 — no matter whether called residence, right of way, or garden and play area. ...

The added and new definitions read as follows: “promotional distribution” means the provision by any person to others of any goods other than the provision thereof that is prescribed by the Minister to be excluded from the application of this paragraph that is, in the opinion of the Minister, provided for anyone or any of the following: (a) to describe, or to promote or encourage, the purchase, consumption or use of any goods, wares, services or property of any kind, (b) to furnish to any person any directory, listing or compilation of persons, places, prices, services, commodities, places of business or users of any service, or (c) for any function, use or purpose prescribed by regulation to be promotional distribution; “promotional distributor” means any person who is a resident of, or carries on business in the Province and who, by way of promotional distribution, provides or causes to be provided to any person in the Province any goods the full fair value of which is not specifically charged to, and required to be paid by, the person to whom such goods are provided; “purchaser” means a consumer who acquires goods at a retail sale within the Province and includes also a promotional distributor to the extent that the full fair value of any goods provided by way of promotional distribution exceeds any payment specifically made therefor by the person to whom such goods are so provided; “sale” includes (a) exchange, barter, sale on credit, conditional sale, sale where the price is payable by instalments, transfer of title conditional or otherwise, and any other contract whereby for a consideration a person delivers goods to another; (b) a transfer of possession, conditional or otherwise, or a lease or a rental, determined by the Commissioner to be in lieu of a transfer of title, exchange or barter, and (c) the provision by way of promotional distribution of any goods Also significant was the revised definition of “consumption” and “use”, now reading as follows: “consumption” and “use” includes the provision by way of promotional distribution of any goods and the incorporation into any structure, building or fixture, of goods including those manufactured by the consumer or further processed or otherwise improved by him; Substantive changes included a substituted subsection 5(2) and (3), a reenactment of subsection 8(1) and an amended subsection 8(2) and new section 11.2. ... There is no doubt, on the evidence, and on ordinary economic considerations which are obvious enough to justify a Court in taking judicial notice of them, that the company would seek, if it could, to include the cost to it of its catalogues and the tax payable on their free distribution in its expense of doing business, and thus seek to pass this expense on to its customers. However, economic considerations are not invariable touchtones of legal incidence. ...

THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein set forth and contained, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows: 1. ... The Dealer, in consideration of the covenants of the Company herein contained, agrees to pay the Company a monthly service charge of Twenty-Three ($23.00) Dollars or such other amount as the Company may from time to time determine, not, however, to exceed in any one month the sum of Fifty ($50.00) Dollars without the prior written consent of the Dealer. 6. ... Further consideration of that aspect of the matter could require a review of the case law in George Sher v MNR, [1978] CTC 2486; 78 DTC 1356, (upheld on appeal to the Federal Court and reported at [1980] CTC 168; 80 DTC 6095; Johnson & Kredentser v MNR, [1980] CTC 2471; 80 DTC 1418, and Marvin C Holland v MNR, [1980] CTC 2487; 80 DTC 1452. ...

The Board is of the view that the person receiving the tip (whose employee number was entered on the bill) was merely a distribution agent and kept 37 /2 per cent for himself in the case of the waiters and 75 per cent in the case of Miss Fortin, the barmaid. 4.03.2 The Board is of the opinion that the attached table mentioned in paragraph 3.09 reflects the situation as it was described in the evidence, bearing in mind all the factors that had to be taken into consideration. ... This provision reads as follows: 9. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act under which an appeal is made, the Board is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in conducting a hearing for the purposes of that Act, and all appeals shall be dealt with by the Board as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness will permit. ... In respect of the penalties provided for in subsection 163(2), since the Board in its consideration of the unreported taxable amounts (paragraph 3.09, last column of table) finds that there was at least gross negligence on the part of the appellants, the said penalties (paragraph 3.03, last column) must be adjusted in accordance with the above decision. 5. ...

(a) there shall be included in computing his income for the year the proceeds of the disposition; and (b) for greater certainty, the cost to the taxpayer of each property received by him as consideration for the disposition is the fair market value of the property at the time of the disposition. 96. (1.4) For the purposes of this Act, a right to a share of the income or loss of a partnership under an agreement referred to in subsection (1.1) shall be deemed not to be capital property. ... The work in progress must there- fore be treated in the manner provided for in clause 17 of the partnership contract (Exhibit A-1) and in accordance with the provisions of the new Income Tax Act. 5.3.3 Clause 17 provides that in determining the value of the share of a departing partner, the accountant must take into consideration the following components: (a) accounts receivable; (b) the earned portion of work performed, but not billed; (c) the earned portion of current contracts; (d) the deficit, if any; (e) the payment of arrears on salaries or compensation. ... Consideration should also naturally be given to the provisions of the new Income Tax Act for professionals regarding accounts receivable and work in progress, provisions which became effective after agreement A-1 was concluded and before the conclusion of agreement A-2, as indicated above. ...

Counsel for the respondent put forward for the Board’s consideration the following:... ... Even the consideration of a possible alternate use for a property at the date of acquisition, or thereafter, certainly need not be fatal to the appellant’s position, but positive action which would lead to such an alternate use may not so easily be dismissed, and must be clearly and satisfactorily explained. ... In the instant case, as I see it, there would appear to be only one possible purpose for making the application to register the building under the STA—it would be at least the consideration of disposal of the asset, preferably by way of the individual units. ...

—The partnership acquired the nursing home in 1968 and part of the consideration for the transfer was $22,500, allocated to goodwill. ... You will note upon examination of this offer, that the only consideration received for the $25,000 was the vendor’s right, title and interest in and to Licence issued the 28th day of June, 1972, which gives evidence to our argument and contention that Nursing Home Licences can be traded and gives further credence to our arguments supporting the fact that IEM sold its Licence and did not sell goodwill. 2. ... Goodwill and other “nothings”. (1) Where as a result of a transaction occurring after 1971 an amount (in this section referred to as the ‘actual amount’) has become payable to a taxpayer in respect of a business carried on by him throughout the period commencing January 1, 1972 and ending immediately after the transaction occurred, for the purposes of section 14 of the amended Act the amount that has become so payable to him shall be deemed to be the aggregate of (a) an amount equal to a percentage, equal to 40% plus the percentage (not exceeding 60%) obtained when 5% is multiplied by the number of full calendar years ending in the period and before the transaction occurred, of the amount, if any, by which the actual amount exceeds the portion thereof referred to in subparagraph (b)(i), and (b) an amount equal to the lesser of (i) the percentage, described in paragraph (a), of such portion, if any, of the actual amount as may reasonably be considered as being the consideration received by him for the disposition of, or for allowing the expiry of, a government right, and (ii) the amount, if any, by which the portion described in subparagraph (i) exceeds the greater of (A) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is an outlay or expenditure, made or incurred by the taxpayer as a result of a transaction occurring after 1971, be an eligible capital expenditure of the taxpayer, and (B) the fair market value to the taxpayer as at December 31, 1971 of the taxpayer’s specified right in respect of the government right, if no outlay or expenditure was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of acquiring the right or, if an outlay or expenditure was made or incurred, if that outlay or expenditure would have been an eligible capital expenditure of the taxpayer if it had been made or incurred as a result of a transaction occurring after 1971. 21.(3) Definitions. ...

(J.)There was consideration of the degree of the parental trust element. ... The sentences under consideration should include absolute and conditional discharges, fines, probation, custodial and conditional sentences. ... In arriving at that final judgment they should take into consideration all the guidelines in the Code including those which urge the fresh approach to serving conventional sentences in the community. ...

The above are but 2 examples of a very long list of diseases spread by the respiratory route which I have appended as a table for further consideration. ... This issue arises for consideration from the following set of circumstances. ... The definitions at issue in Canadian International Paper Inc. were identical to those under consideration at present except that the definition of health product ended with, “...but not including cosmetics”. ...

(“the subsidiary”); (c) the subsidiary has operated a furniture retail business for a number of years; (d) the appellant and her son Claude respectively hold 51% and 49% of the outstanding common shares in the company; (e) in April 1990 the market value and tax consequences of the company’s shares were the following; No. of Paid-up shares FMV ACB capital Appellant 61 $467,687 $ 6,100 $ 6,100 Claude Nadeau 59 $452,353 $ 5,900 $ 5,900 120 $920,040 $12,000 $12,000 PER SHARE $ 7,667 $ 100 $ 100 (f) in early 1990 the appellant decided that it was a good time for her to withdraw from the furniture retail business: (g) on June 8, 1990 numbered company 2757-6958 was incorporated under the Quebec Companies Act with the appellant’s son Claude Nadeau as its sole proprietor; (h) on July 20, 1990 the appellant and her son Claude transferred their Class A shares to the company in consideration of new Class A shares of the company with the following values: No. of shares FMV ACB Legal paid- up capital Appellant 61 A $467,687 $467,687 $ 6,100 Claude Nadeau 59 A $452,353 $400,000 $ 5,900 120 A $920,040 $867,687 $12,000 PER SHARE $ 7,667 $ 7,667 $ 100 (i) on July 20, 1990 the appellant’s son Claude Nadeau subscribed and paid $100 for 100 Class B shares; 0) on July 24, 1990 the company altered its articles as follows: i. all the authorized shares that had not been issued were cancelled: (11.) an unlimited number of no par value Class A, B, C and D shares were created; iii. the 120 shares described in paragraph 4(e) were converted to 120 Class A shares as described in paragraph 4(h); iV. each of these new shares had rights of participation and voting rights attached to it and was convertible into a Class C or D share at the option of the holder and the company; V. each issued and outstanding Class A share was split into 100 shares; vi. the Class B shares came with the usual rights of common shares; Vil. the Class C shares: (I) were non-voting shares; (11) were retractable at the market value received by the company in consideration of their issue; and (III) carried the right to a cumulative 10% dividend calculated based on the redemption price, and this right was held in preference to the Class A, B and D shares; and viii. the Class D shares came with the same rights, privileges and restrictions as the Class C shares, but the dividend was 9% and had to be paid in preference to the Class A and B shares; (k) on July 31, 1990 the appellant and her son Claude Nadeau converted their Class A shares into new Class C and D shares at the following values: No. of shares FMV ACB Legal paid- up capital Appellant 6,100C $467,687 $467,687 $6,100 Claude Nadeau 5,900D $452,353 $400,000 $5,900 PER SHARE $76.67 $76.67 $1.00 (D on August 8, 1990, 2757-6958 Québec Inc. (“2757-6958") subscribed and paid $460,000 for one Class C share in the company, and the company’s Class C paid-up capital thus rose from $6,100 to $466,100 while the paid-up capital of each share, which had been $1.00, became $76.40 (($460,000 + $6,100)/6,101); (m) 2757-6958 borrowed $460,000 from the National Bank of Canada (“the Bank”) payable on a demand note guaranteed by the appellant and her son Claude Nadeau; (n) on August 9, 1990 the company redeemed the Class C share held by 2757-6958 for $460,000 and 2757-6958 repaid the Bank and paid $198.49 in interest: (o) 2757-6958 reported receiving a deemed dividend of $459,924 in 1990, and as of the date of the assessment it had engaged in no transactions other than the ones mentioned above; (p) on August 17, 1990 the appellant and her son Claude Nadeau agreed as shareholders in the company to have the company redeem 407 of the appellant’s Class C shares each year beginning in 1990 and for the following 13 years, and 402 shares in the fifteenth year, at a price of $76.67 a share; (q) the appellant asked the company to redeem the Class C shares on the following dates: Date Number of shares August 20, 1990 237 shares December 28, 1990 170 shares April 24, 199] 136 shares August 29, 199] 136 shares December 26, 1991] 135 shares (r) as a consequence of the aforementioned series of transactions a tax benefit was conferred on the appellant and the Minister considered that the increase in the paid-up capital of the Class C shares from $1.00 to $76.40 a share was an abuse. ... The intention was that within a few hours after the share was issued, it would be redeemed and the amount of the consideration would immediately be returned to the bank, which had loaned it. ...