Search - consideration

In view of the fact that the same problem called for consideration in both years and that much of the evidence was applicable to both years, the two appeals were, with the consent of counsel, heard together at Toronto, Ontario, on March 12 and 13, 1969, at a sittings of the Tax Appeal Board as it was then constituted. ... With the above adjustment made, the issue narrows down to a consideration of scientific research expenditures falling within section 72, the question being whether these amounts are deductible in computing income. ... After a most thorough and careful consideration of the evidence in the present appeal and of the judgment of Cattanach, J in the International Nickel case (supra), I have reached the conclusion that the appellant must succeed in its appeals. ...

Taking into consideration the above enactment, the assessor issued an assessment based upon the following calculation: Loss reported $ 50,022.93 Less: Charitable donations disallowed $ 2,413.00 Construction superintendents salary Capitalized 21,181.75 Legal fees capitalized: 1,643.50 Expenses disallowed 3,672.51 Profit on sale of maisonettes 545,767.83 Capital Cost Allowance: Claimed per Schedule $297,842.85 Allowed per Schedule 284,067.55 13,775.30 588,453.89 Revised Income $538,430.96 Less: 1964 Donations $ 2,434.75 1965 Donations 2,413.00 4,847.75 1963 Loss 139,324.86 1964 Loss 145,711.49 289,884.10 Revised Taxable Income $248,546.86 Calculation of Tax: $ 35,000.00 at 21% $ 7,350.00 $213,546.86 at 50% 106,773.43 $248,546.86 $114,123.43 Less: Provincial Tax Abatement—9% x $248,546.86 22,369.22 Federal Tax Payable $ 91,754.21 1963 1964 1965 Rental Income 5,071.05 148,028.81 158,179.25 Net Profit 2,597.68 36,765.81 36,971.60 (h) the net profit of the sale of the said Maisonettes was used by the Appellant to discharge a demand loan of $540,000.00 owed by it to its bankers; (i) the Appellant acquired the land and constructed the said Maisonettes thereon with a view to trading, developing or otherwise turning them to account at a profit, in the course of carrying on its business, in pursuance of its objects; (j) the Appellant since its inception has carried on the business of construction and sale of residential houses and the sub-division and sale of building lots; (k) prior to 1964, the Appellant did not own any properties other than the said Maisonettes from which it earned rental income; (l) all of the Appellant’s shareholders are either in the Real Estate or Construction business, or have a history of Real Estate transactions. ... After due consideration of the evidence and the strong argument of counsel for the appellant, I came to the conclusion that a wise and bright presentation does not always represent the law. ... If we look at the way the maisonettes were dealt with, one must take into consideration the fact that the land on which they were built was purchased from a shareholder and a director of the appellant. ...

Taking into consideration the above enactment, the assessor issued an assessment based upon the following calculation: Loss reported $ 50,022.93 Less: Charitable donations disallowed $ 2,413.00 Construction superintendents salary Capitalized 21,181.75 Legal fees capitalized: 1,643.50 Expenses disallowed 3,672.51 Profit on sale of maisonettes 545,767.83 Capital Cost Allowance: Claimed per Schedule $297,842.85 Allowed per Schedule 284,067.55 13,775.30 588,453.89 Revised Income $538,430.96 Less: 1964 Donations $ 2,434.75 1965 Donations 2,413.00 4,847.75 1963 Loss 139,324.86 1964 Loss 145,711.49 289,884.10 Revised Taxable Income $248,546.86 Calculation of Tax: $ 35,000.00 at 21% $ 7,350.00 $213,546.86 at 50% 106,773.43 $248,546.86 $114,123.43 Less: Provincial Tax Abatement—9% x $248,546.86 22,369.22 Federal Tax Payable $ 91,754.21 1963 1964 1965 Rental Income 5,071.05 148,028.81 158,179.25 Net Profit 2,597.68 36,765.81 36,971.60 (h) the net profit of the sale of the said Maisonettes was used by the Appellant to discharge a demand loan of $540,000.00 owed by it to its bankers; (i) the Appellant acquired the land and constructed the said Maisonettes thereon with a view to trading, developing or otherwise turning them to account at a profit, in the course of carrying on its business, in pursuance of its objects; (j) the Appellant since its inception has carried on the business of construction and sale of residential houses and the sub-division and sale of building lots; (k) prior to 1964, the Appellant did not own any properties other than the said Maisonettes from which it earned rental income; (l) all of the Appellant’s shareholders are either in the Real Estate or Construction business, or have a history of Real Estate transactions. ... After due consideration of the evidence and the strong argument of counsel for the appellant, I came to the conclusion that a wise and bright presentation does not always represent the law. ... If we look at the way the maisonettes were dealt with, one must take into consideration the fact that the land on which they were built was purchased from a shareholder and a director of the appellant. ...

In 1962 and 1963 the appellant acquired a total of 3,374 shares of Vancouver Airline Limousines Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “VAL”) for a consideration of one cent per share. ... On the contrary, Messrs Evans and Flusser applied successfully for an additional permit to transport passengers from Canada to the United States (Seattle, Washington), and when they sold the shares of the newly incorporated VAL (1963) Ltd for $200,000 they admitted that this Seattle permit was taken into consideration, along with the other permits, as a valuable asset. There is no reason, in the light of the foregoing, to ignore the appraisal of the respondent and take into consideration the nominal value of one cent per share. ...

Furthermore, the principles taken up in 3922731 Canada were not called into question here. [34] In summary, 3922731 Canada does not appear to be determinative in the case under consideration. [35] The uncontradicted testimonial evidence showed that the appellant, through its president, contacted the Lessor in 2013 to ask it to send its GST number. ... For example, a contract for services may specify the particulars concerning the supplier, the recipient, and the terms of payment, but the consideration and the tax paid or payable may be determined only on a periodic basis and documented on separate invoices. ... The prescribed information, per the Input Tax Credit Information GST/HST Regulations, should allow the Minister to ascertain: • the identities of the supplier and recipient; • the Business number of the supplier; • when the supply took place; • the nature of the supply; • the tax status of the supply; • the value of the consideration paid or payable; • the terms of payment; and • the amount of tax paid or payable. ...

In my view, however, the task of interpreting the meaning of the subsection is not limited to a consideration of the words of the subsection itself, but regard may be had to the terms of the statute. ... I should state that when I first examined the subsection, it seemed to me that its meaning was clear and unambiguous, namely that the exemption applied to all income (or profit) arising or accruing by sales of minerals within the 36-month period of exemption—as submitted by the respondent, and further consideration strengthens that opinion. ... For not only is every part of the statute itself to be taken into consideration in order to ascertain the meaning of any obscure expression, but “recourse may (also) be had to rules which have been made under the authority of the Act, if the construction of the Act is ambiguous and doubtful on any point, and if we find that in the rules any particular construction has been put on the Act, it is our duty to adopt and follow that construction.” ...

Consideration was given to rebuilding this feed mill or buying out a competitor. ... After having given careful consideration to all facets of the evidence adduced, I am led to the conclusion that one of the main reasons for the separate corporate existence of the respondents herein was the reduction in the amount of income tax payable. ... Howson that the reasons for the creation of separate entities were the four reasons of business considerations which he outlined in his testimony and while he knew of the tax reduction which would follow, that was not a reason which influenced the decision to do so. ...

The city of Kitchener was deliberately selected by them as the site of the factory, the paramount consideration being that the raw materials were plentiful in that area with little regard being paid to other considerations other than that land costs were less there. ... After having given careful consideration to all the evidence, I am not convinced that there is a balance of probability that appellants acquired the property for the purpose of constructing a manufacturing plant on it to the exclusion of any purpose of disposition at a profit. ...

There can be no doubt as to the intent of it which was that the whole family should work together as a unit, use the proceeds of their joint efforts to buy land and eventually distribute same whether in the form of land or an equivalent cash consideration for the eventual establishment of each of the members of the family on an independent basis. ... At p. 136 it is stated: The question whether there was a partnership must be determined by the real intention of the parties as evidenced by their conduct; and in ascertaining their real relationship the Court will not take any one circumstance and say that it by itself raises a presumption for or against a partnership and then ask whether there is anything to rebut that presumption, but will take into consideration everything that is available, formal contracts, corresponding and the evidence of witnesses, and ascertain therefrom if possible what the true relationship was. ... The authority conferred on the Court, however, by Section 100(5) of the Income Tax Act, justifies a judgment referring the assessment back to the Minister for re-consideration and re-assessment on the basis of the existence of a partnership between the respondent and his sons and daughter and I so direct. ...

In the three years under consideration, i.e., 1958, 1959 and 1960, this resulted in the taxpayer receiving an income from the said short term securities as follows: 1958 $231,197.94 1959 412,852.85 1960 504,763.64 (as adjusted by the Minister in his re-assessment) During the same years, the liability for interest upon the 5% sinking fund debentures of the taxpayer was in these amounts: The 36-month exemption period allowed by Section 83(5) to which I have referred above, having commenced on March 1, 1956 ended on that day in 1959, and therefore the 1959 figures must be divided so that the first two months showed an income from short term investments of $68,922.28 and the remaining ten months in the next exemption period showed an income from such short term investments of $343,930.57, while the interest payable on the 5% sinking fund debentures in the first two months was $60,152 and in the remaining ten months, i.e., the non-exempt period, was $175,940. ... The Vendor hereby sells, transfers and assigns unto the Purchaser and the Purchaser hereby accepts the sale, transfer and assignment of all the vendor’s exclusive right and concession under the Indentures for and in consideration of the price of one million, nine hundred and thirteen thousand and sixty dollars ($1,913,060.00) payable upon the execution hereof. ... On the other hand, he based his decision solely on a consideration of the proper interpretation to be given to the words franchise, concession or licence’’ in business practice on this continent. ...