Search - consideration

Certain facts were established in evidence which are, in my view, germane to a consideration of this category. ... I have taken these items into consideration for that limited purpose. 61 I now summarize hereunder the disposition which I propose to make of the main action and the counterclaim. ... Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to any consideration on the question of costs. ...

In making the reassessment dated March 23, 1995 for the taxation year ending on May 31, 1989, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact, inter alia: (a) on February 11, 1988, the appellant purchased a vacant lot of 66,858 square feet with an old house situated at 5560 boul. des Laurentides in Laval from Gaston Boivin for total consideration of $163,390.00; [admitted] (b) on October 14, 1988, the appellant transferred the said land by means of a rollover to 142529 Canada Inc. for the agreed upon sum of $163,390.00; [admitted] (c) on October 14, 1988, 142529 Canada Inc. sold the said land, plus 30 feet of frontage, to Le Groupe Pétrolier Olco for total consideration of $338,065.00; [admitted] (d) Membrex Ltée and 142529 Canada Inc. are wholly owned by Réginald Ratle; [admitted] (e) Membrex Ltée is a company that operates a business manufacturing membranes for use in industrial construction; [admitted] (f) 142529 Canada Inc. operates a senior citizens home; [admitted] 3. ... Valuation of inventory property. (1) For the purpose of computing income from a business, the property described in an inventory shall be valued at its cost to the taxpayer or its fair market value, whichever is lower, or in such other manner as may be permitted by regulation. 54(b) “Capital property”. | “capital property” of a taxpayer means (i) any depreciable property of the taxpayer, and (ii) any property (other than depreciable property), any gain or loss from the disposition of which would, if the property were disposed of, be a capital gain or a capital loss, as the case may be, of the taxpayer; 54(d) “Eligible capital property”. || “eligible capital property” of a taxpayer means any property, a part of the consideration for the disposition of which would, if he disposed of the property, be an eligible capital amount in respect of a business; 248. “ Inventory ”. — “inventory” means a description of property the cost or value of which is relevant in computing a taxpayer's income from a business for a taxation year;” “ Business ” — “business” includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatever and, except for the purposes of paragraph 18(2)(c), section 54.2 and paragraph 110.6(14)(f), an adventure or concern in the nature of trade but does not include an office or employment; 4.02 Case Law 62 The following cases were cited or considered: 1. ... In fact, it was only financial considerations that led Mr. Ratle to make the decision to have the land purchased by the appellant. ...

To my mind the foregoing is not intended to convey the notion that entering into bona fide business contracts that are motivated by considerations of related tax benefits is to be regarded as divorced from “commercial and economic realities”. ... It is commonplace in Canada and elsewhere for tax considerations and planning to play a pivotal role in the making of important business decisions. 19 Mara Properties Ltd. v. ... </p>] 28 The latest consideration of subsection 245(1) of the Act by the Federal Court of Appeal is Fording Coal Ltd. v. ...

On June 5, 1958 the appellant executed an agreement for sale of its interest in the Jerd Syndicate for the consideration of $1 in cash and the assumption of appellant’s outstanding obligation of $4,500 and a future obligation of $4,500 due on July 4, 1958. The consideration so paid was $4,501, but this has no bearing on the amount of the appellant’s alleged loss of $80,567.38 because if the obligation of $4,500 had been paid then the loss of $80,- 567.38 claimed by the appellant would have been increased by an amount of $4,500 and when the monetary consideration received was deducted from that greater figure, the amount of the loss would remain constant at $80,567.38. To resolve the question in issue it is necessary to consider three matters (i) did the amount of $80,567.38 constitute a loss, (ii) if the first matter is answered affirmatively, then was the loss deductible for income tax purposes, and (iii) if the first two propositions are answered affirmatively, then consideration must be given as to when the loss occurred in point of time The appellant, in entering into the Jerd Syndicate, was pursuing the objects for which it was incorporated. ...

Ltd. in consideration, inter alia, of the issuance to him of 100,000 shares, about half of which he sold during the year 1952. ... I might here add that I think, for. reasons which appear later, I do not propose to deal with the aforementioned item on its merits nor with the appellant’s defence that the Minister erred in assuming that the appellant obtained the said shares for nothing, whereas he had been given valuable consideration for them. ... There are two transactions properly before me for consideration. The first concerns the sale of the N.W.T. ...

Butler against the Agency was taken into consideration and that such claim did not relate to his salary or to services rendered. ... Peaslee ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER In consideration of payment to me of the sum of $5,000, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I hereby assign, transfer and make over to Messrs. ... In reaching a conclusion on that question it would be wholly irrelevant to take into consideration evidence relating to the manner in which the action was financed, or evidence in regard to the disposition to be made of the ‘‘income earned’’ after it had been received. ...

Lux at para. 10 (my emphasis). [35] Having cited this passage from Lux, the Tax Court proceeded to take a position at odds with it, namely that where a party faced an “all or nothing issue”, the level of success could be taken into consideration by the Court in fixing the amount of costs. ... It is at this point that considerations of excessiveness and disproportionality may be given effect. ... The inclusion of factors such as “any other matter relevant to the question of costs” – Rule 147(3)(j) – is the door through which such considerations arrive. ...

Ben-Menashe that the Order should be set aside, for the reasons that follow. [4] First, a brief background of the law around jeopardy orders and key legal considerations will assist in providing the context for my conclusion and judgment in this matter. ... This limitation was a reasonable compromise, which I endorsed, given the concerns raised by the Minister. [37] In conclusion on the Preliminary Issue, the Supplementary Affidavit and its Exhibits are admitted into the record, whereby any consideration of the TCC Notice of Appeal will be restricted to Mr. ... Ben‑Menashe submits that the Minister’s argument fails to take into consideration the deposits made into Ms. ...

The Appellant built a family home on one of the lots, gifted some of the lots to family members and sold the remaining lots to third parties. [29] In 2005, he sold four of the lots to third parties for consideration of $74,000. He sold one lot in 2007 for consideration of $22,000 and one lot in 2008 for consideration of $10,000. In 2010, he sold two lots for consideration of $48,000. Income reported on Appellant’s income tax returns [30] In his tax return for 2009, the Appellant reported employment income of $28,217.75, gross business income of $45,180 and a loss from this business of $651. [4] [31] In his tax return for 2010, the Appellant reported employment income of $31,813.76, net rental income of $13,810, gross business income of $45,814 and a loss from this business of $1,291.58. [5] [32] In his tax return for 2011, the Appellant reported employment income of $49,593.14, net rental income of $10,312.21, gross business income of $54,255.80 and a loss from this business of $12,324.19. [6] CRA’s determination of the Appellant’s income [33] As I noted in Berezuik v. ...

BETWEEN: BRUCE LAWRENCE, Executive, of 301—14th Street North West, in the City of Calgary, Province of Alberta, (hereinafter called the “Lessor”) OF THE FIRST PART AND: SPRUNG INSTANT STRUCTURES LTD, a body corporate, duly incorporated under the laws of the Province of Alberta, and having an office at 1001—10th Avenue South West, in the City of Calgary, Province: of Alberta, (hereinafter called the “Lessee”) OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS the Lessor owns the units of equipment described in the Schedule annexed hereto; AND WHEREAS the Lessee wishes to lease the units of equipment from the Lessor on the terms and conditions hereinafter contained: NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the rental payments set out in the Schedule hereto, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows: 1. ... He did not suggest that those cases were the same as or similar to this appeal, but rather submitted that when the issue in this appeal was being considered, the same consideration should exist as those cases set forth. ... I cannot see a person spending $28,000 or $100,000 on an asset, even if there were tax shelter consideration, to gain 12 per cent on his investment for one year (let alone six months). ...