Search - consideration

Further, Justice St-Louis explained at para 43: [43] The Court’s role is not to reweigh the evidence (Quastel v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2011 FC 143 at para 21), but rather to examine if the Minister’s Delegate “properly considered the evidence before him and that the decision was not based on considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose” (Hauser v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2007 FC 113 at para 21). ... Instead, s. 220(3.1) of the ITA allows the Minister to grant relief when there are “extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the taxpayer that would have prevented him from complying with the [Act]”: Peter Easton, at para 50. [21] I note and agree with the Respondent that the Decision did take into consideration the Applicant’s history of compliance. ... (specified Canadian entity) specified foreign property  of a person or partnership means any property of the person or the partnership that is BLANK (a) funds or intangible property, or for civil law incorporeal property, situated, deposited or held outside Canada, BLANK (b) tangible property, or for civil law corporeal property, situated outside Canada, BLANK (c) a share of the capital stock of a non-resident corporation, BLANK (d) an interest in a non-resident trust, BLANK (e) an interest in a partnership that owns or holds specified foreign property, BLANK (f) an interest in, or right with respect to, an entity that is non-resident, BLANK (g) indebtedness owed by a non-resident person, BLANK (h) an interest in, or for civil law a right in, or a right — under a contract in equity or otherwise either immediately or in the future and either absolutely or contingently — to, any property (other than any property owned by a corporation or trust that is not the person) that is specified foreign property, and BLANK (i) property that, under the terms or conditions thereof or any agreement relating thereto, is convertible into, is exchangeable for or confers a right to acquire, property that is specified foreign property, BLANK but does not include BLANK (j) property that is used or held exclusively in the course of carrying on an active business of the person or partnership (determined as if the person or partnership were a corporation resident in Canada), BLANK (k) a share of the capital stock or indebtedness of a non-resident corporation that is a foreign affiliate of the person or partnership for the purpose of section 233.4, BLANK (l) an interest in, or indebtedness of, a non-resident trust that is a foreign affiliate of the person or partnership for the purpose of section 233.4, BLANK (m) an interest in a non-resident trust that was not acquired for consideration by either the person or partnership or a person related to the person or partnership, BLANK (n) an interest in a trust described in paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition exempt trust in subsection 233.2(1), BLANK (o) an interest in a partnership that is a specified Canadian entity, BLANK (o.1) a right with respect to, or indebtedness of, an authorized foreign bank that is issued by, and payable or otherwise enforceable at, a branch in Canada of the bank, BLANK (p) personal-use property of the person or partnership, and BLANK (q) an interest in, or for civil law a right in, or a right to acquire, a property that is described in any of paragraphs (j) to (p).  ...

Clause 7.01 provides in part: 7.01 The capital of the Limited Partnership shall be divided into 274 Units which shall be issued as follows: [a] One (1) Unit shall be issued to the Founding Partner in consideration of the Founding Partner making an original capital contribution of ONE DOLLAR [$1.00] and agreeing to make an additional capital contribution of TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED and NINETY NINE DOLLARS [$24,999] as hereinafter provided; and [b] Two Hundred and seventy-three [273] Units shall be issued pursuant to an Offering in consideration of each Limited Partner making a contribution of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000) per Unit. ... In consideration of the General Partner accepting this subscription and conditional thereon: (a) the undersigned agrees to be bound, as a party and as a Limited Partner in the Limited Partnership, by the terms of the Conditional Sales Agreement, and by the terms of the Limited Partnership Agreement, the Sublease, the Maintenance and Technology Agreement and the Management Agreement from time to time amended and in effect, and the undersigned expressly ratifies and confirms the Power of Attorney given the General Partner therein and (b) the undersigned hereby irrevocably makes, constitutes and appoints the General Partner with full power of substitution, as his true and lawful attorney and agent, with full power and authority in his name, place and stead and for his use and benefit, to execute, swear to, acknowledge, deliver, file and record on his behalf in the appropriate public offices and publish all the following: i. the Limited Partnership Agreement and counterparts thereof, the execution whereof by the General Partner being hereby ratified; ii. the Conditional Sales Agreement and the Management Agreement the Sublease and the Maintenance and Technology Agreement and the execution whereof by the General Partner being hereby ratified; iii. all instruments which the General Partner deems appropriate to reflect any amendment, change or modification to the Limited Partnership or to the Limited Partnership Agreement or to the Conditional Sales Agreement, the Sublease, or the Maintenance and Technology Agreement or the Management Agreement in accordance with the terms thereof; iv. all certificate and instruments and amendments thereto which the General Partner deems appropriate or necessary to conform quality, or continue the qualification of the Limited Partnership in or otherwise comply with the laws of the Province of British Columbia; v. all conveyances, agreements, and instruments which the General Partner deems appropriate or necessary to reflect the dissolution and termination of the Limited Partnership pursuant to the terms of the Limited Partnership Agreement to be entered into on behalf of each Limited Partner; and vi. any and all other documents, certificates and instruments which may be required to be filled by the Limited Partnership under the laws of Canada or any Province or Territory thereof. ...

Costs are awarded to the Appellant on a party and party basis in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Tariff, however, either party may make submissions otherwise for consideration by the Court within 30 days of this judgment.   ... Lai for insufficient consideration. 078 BC’s defence is that it received the property in trust and not for its own benefit. ... Now, that litigation may proceed to determine how 078 BC held those moneys. [63] Costs are awarded to the Appellant on a party and party basis in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Tariff, however, either party may make submissions otherwise for consideration by the Court within 30 days of this judgment. ...

One consideration may point so clearly that it dominates other and vaguer indications in the contrary direction. ... One consideration may point so clearly that it dominates other and vaguer considerations in the contrary direction. ...

The agreement of February 1970, for a total consideration Of $114,421.33, provided the appellants with 10,000 no par value common shares, 1,600 $10 par value cumulative preferred shares and six promissory notes having a face value of $311,745.86 (principal and accrued interest). ... As a supplementary point, counsel requested the Board give consideration to the appellants’ claim that, since the preferred shares were redeemed in 1970, any gain on them (whether $15,900 or $16,000) should be taxed only in that year, not in the subsequent years; and that in addition all payments to the appellants (if held to be taxable) should only be taxed on a pro rata basis (the gain as a percentage of the total received) distributed over the four years during which payments had been made—1970 through 1973—as provided for in Interpretation Bulletin IT-114, a portion of which counsel quoted for support: 11.... ... Further it was argued that no consideration could be or should be given for proportionate taxation liability on the four years involved in the redemption plan. ...

Issue Counsel for the appellant contends that the payments received in 1969 in consideration of the assignment of its right under a mortgage was a consideration for the disposition of a capital asset; that there was no taxable income in the 1969 fiscal year other than on a capital gain and that the whole of the loss of some $218,000 incurred in 1970 should be applied to the 1971 fiscal year. ... It is also to be noted that the trust agreement dated May 26, 1969 (Exhibit A-30, page 2) contains the following clause: NOW THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH that in consideration of the said Agreement and the premises the Trustee hereby declares for itself ana its successors and assigns that the said Mortgage, lands and the monies thereby secured, and the Judgment acquired by it as aforesaid was acquired and has been in trust for and on behalf of the Benificiary...* [1] The minutes, the correspondence and the memos filed with the Board as Exhibits R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9 and R-13 though they deal after the May 26, 1969 trust agreement with various aspects concerning the mortgage, de not, in my opinion, warrant, as suggested by the respondent, setting aside the credible evidence that the intention of the Cummings pr»cr to and during December 1968 was to have Leitrim Investments Co Limited acquire and hold the mortgage for the appellant nor is there any valid evidence that the meeting of the directors of Leitrim Investments was not held on November 1, 1968. ...

There appears to have been no consideration given by the old company to account for his agreement with it to the effect that he was acting on its behalf and if any bonuses were paid to him by the new company they must be turned over to the old company. ... If this was the case it hardly seems that the old company gave any consideration to defendant which could explain why he would agree to turn all his bonus payments from the new company over to it, or how the old company could consider these payments received from defendant as income in the years in which they were received since the old company had done nothing to earn this income. ... It is not necessary for the decision of this case to express an opinion as to whether the old company could have enforced its agreement with defendant had he failed to carry it out or whether it would have failed for want of consideration, since it is clear in any event that this agreement could not in any way affect the new company or Chrysler. ...

In Alpine Furniture Company Limited v MNR, [1969] 1 Ex CR 307 at 319; [1968] CTC 532 at 543; 68 DTC 5338 at 5345, Cattanach, J stated: That question is one of fact to be decided upon the evidence adduced and the proper inferences to be drawn from that evidence and the onus of establishing that the sole main reason was that of business consideration falls upon the appellants. ... An example of a case where the other considerations dictated the creation of several corporations and the income tax benefit arising therefrom was only an incidental benefit, is Jordans Rugs Ltd et al. v MNR, [1969] CTC 445. ... None of these facts individually would cast doubt on the appellant’s contention that tax considerations were not involved in the decision to restructure the business, but their cumulative effect, in my view, leaves the clear impression that the changes were only cosmetic and had to be for other than the admitted reasons since, if it were only for those reasons the multiplicity of companies was unnecessary. ...

Subject to the other provisions of this Part, income for a taxation year from a business or property is the profit therefrom for the year. 139. (1) In this Act, (e) “business” includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatsoever and includes an adventure or concern in the nature of trade but does not include an office or employment; The appellant is a joint stock company incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province of Alberta on June 28, 1962 under the name of Makoi Holdings Ltd with an authorized capital consisting of 20,000 shares without nominal or par value which might be issued for a consideration not exceeding $20,000. ... There were only three shares in the capital stock of the appellant which were issued and these shares were issued for a total consideration of $4. ... It is always a question of fact if a particular transaction amounts to an adventure in the nature of trade and in determining the matter the principal consideration is the intention of the person concerned. if it was the appellant’s exclusive intention at the time of acquisition to hold the shopping centre for the rental revenue therefrom then the profit from the sale of the shopping centre on the abandonment of that purpose would not be a profit from a business or an adventure in the nature of trade. ...

The appellant had under consideration for some time a pension plan for its three executive officers. ... To reassure the officers of the appellant and dispell their apprehensions the auditor was sent to the head office of the Department of National Revenue in Ottawa to submit these proposed pension plans and trust agreements (which had been drafted but not executed) to officers of the Department for consideration and approval and to advise those officers that it was the intention of the proposed trustees to invest the contributions to the plans in preferred shares of the appellant, as yet to be created. ... Under paragraph 139(1)(ahh) a registered pension plan means one that has been accepted by the Minister for registration for the taxation year under consideration. ...