Search - consideration

  [9]                By concluding that the consideration included the fees, the TCC judge also dismissed the argument that paragraph 84.1(1)(b) could not allow this addition without paragraph 69(1)(b) also being applied.   ... Therefore, according to the appellant, the fees were not part of the “consideration” it received for the purposes of Part D of the formula set out at paragraph 84.1(1)(b) ...   [11]            In any event, the amount of the consideration identified in the contract of sale cannot be adjusted unless the fair market value of the shares sold under paragraph 69(1)(b) of the Act is called into question. ...

There was consideration flowing from mother to son in the form of an obligation to return the full amount. ... Pearson provided adequate consideration. Maybe she would return some, maybe she would not. ... On balance, I find there was no adequate consideration. Thus all four requirements of section 160 have been met and Ms. ...

However, in my view, it is implausible that the City paid no portion of the Settlement Amount to the Appellant in consideration of his resignation as an employee. ... The language of the Settlement Agreement leaves no room for interpretation: at least a part of the Settlement Amount, if not all of it, was paid by the City to the Appellant in consideration of his resignation from his employment. ... In consideration of the fulfilment of the commitments made herein by the City, Forest tenders his resignation, which shall be effective on the date of signing hereof.   6.                  ...

Subsection 254(2) provides in full as follows: 254(2) New housing rebate—Where (a) a builder of a single unit residential complex or a residential condominium unit makes a taxable supply by way of sale of the complex or unit to a particular individual, (b) at the time the particular individual becomes liable or assumes liability under an agreement of purchase and sale of the complex or unit entered into between the builder and the particular individual, the particular individual is acquiring the complex or unit for use as the primary place of residence of the particular individual or a relation of the particular individual, (c) the total (in this subsection referred to as the “total consideration”) of all amounts, each of which is the consideration payable for the supply to the particular individual of the complex or unit or for any other taxable supply to the particular individual of an interest in the complex or unit, is less than $450,000, (d) the particular individual has paid all of the tax under Division II payable in respect of the supply of the complex or unit and in respect of any other supply to the individual of an interest in the complex or unit (the total of which tax under subsection 165(1) is referred to in this subsection as the “total tax paid by the particular individual”), (e) ownership of the complex or unit is transferred to the particular individual after the construction or substantial renovation thereof is substantially completed, (f) after the construction or substantial renovation is substantially completed and before possession of the complex or unit is given to the particular individual under the agreement of purchase and sale of the complex or unit (i) in the case of a single unit residential complex, the complex was not occupied by any individual as a place of residence or lodging, and (ii) in the case of a residential condominium unit, the unit was not occupied by an individual as a place of residence or lodging unless, throughout the time the complex or unit was so occupied, it was occupied as a place of residence by an individual, or a relation of an individual, who was at the time of that occupancy a purchaser of the unit under an agreement of purchase and sale of the unit, and (g) either (i) the first individual to occupy the complex or unit as a place of residence at any time after substantial completion of the construction or renovation is (A) in the case of a single unit residential complex, the particular individual or a relation of the particular individual, and (B) in the case of a residential condominium unit, an individual, or a relation of an individual, who was at that time a purchaser of the unit under an agreement of purchase and sale of the unit, or (ii) the particular individual makes an exempt supply by way of sale of the complex or unit and ownership thereof is transferred to the recipient of the supply before the complex or unit is occupied by any individual as a place of residence or lodging,   (h) where the total consideration is not more than $350,000, an amount equal to the lesser of $6,300 and 36% of the total tax paid by the particular individual, and (i) where the total consideration is more than $350,000 but less than $450,000, the amount determined by the formula A × ($450,000- B)/$100,000 where A is the lesser of $6,300 and 36% of the total tax paid by the particular individual, and B is the total consideration. [16]   Section 254 refers to a “particular individual”. ... Akbari was a bare trustee and that only the Appellant was a “particular individual” for the purposes of subsection 254(2) of the ETA, it necessarily follows that the Appellant was also the person “who was liable under the agreement to pay the consideration” for the purpose of the definition of a “recipient”. ... Akbari for the consideration changes nothing to the notion that it is the Appellant, as legal and beneficial owner, who was ultimately liable for the consideration under the terms of the Trust Declaration.... 57 In the end, for the purposes of all the conditions set out in subsection 254(2) of the ETA, Dr. ...

These arguments are: (1) there was consideration provided by her for the dividends she received; (2) the dividends were not a transfer of property because they did not occur at law due to of non-compliance with the provincial corporate law; and (3) a portion of the dividends were actually loan repayments. [15]   I will consider each of these in turn. (1) There was consideration for the dividends [16]   The Appellant argues that there was in fact consideration for the dividends paid to her because, in the years in which dividends were reported, she was owed salary amounts. [17]   The seminal case on this matter is Neuman v Minister of National Revenue, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 770 (SCC). In Neuman, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the payment of a dividend relates to the entitlement of the shareholder to a capital interest in a corporation and not to any other consideration the corporation may receive from the shareholder. [18]   The Tax Court has ruled on this issue in several appeals, consistently finding that the right of a shareholder to receive a dividend flows from his or her status as a shareholder and not from any consideration the shareholder may have given. ... When the dividend is paid, the corporation divests itself of ownership of the money (or other property) used to pay the dividend. [2] [20]   The Appellant therefore cannot be successful on the basis that she provided consideration for the dividends ...

In my view, that is a relevant consideration. That is not to suggest that the taxpayer’s current circumstances are irrelevant. But it is to say, that all of his circumstances are relevant to the matter under consideration. [15] Mr. ... [emphasis added] [18] The proportion of interest accrued to the underlying tax debt is not a stand alone consideration. [19] Unlike Mr. ...

So I was told: “There is going to be a meeting in a couple of weeks”, if my memory is correct, "but between now and then, we are offering you $15,000 to amount was received was made or the form or legal effect thereof, it cannot reasonably be regarded as having been received (c) as consideration or partial consideration for accepting the office or entering into the contract of employment, (d) as remuneration or partial remuneration for services as an officer or under the contract of employment, or (e) in consideration or partial consideration for a covenant with reference to what the officer or employee is, or is not, to do before or after the termination of the employment. compensate for part of the expenses you incurred in developing your territory. ... He received the $15,000 in consideration or partial consideration of a covenant with reference to what Mr. ... Probably part of the $15,000 represented the consideration for the non- competition clause and the other part represented compensation for expenses incurred by Mr. ...

The evidence is by no means clear as to the true nature of the consideration for the making of these payments by Leaseholds. ... When, however, the Imperial Oil Company had exercised its option and paid the consideration, a further agreement was made between the appellant and Leaseholds dated December 30, 1950, described as an ‘‘Agreement of Settlement and Adjustments”. ... The settlement agreement, however, says that the moneys were paid as the consideration for reducing the royalty payable by Leaseholds. ...

The Minister subsequently reassessed the Appellant for failing to collect GST on the consideration he received from CHL for the Equipment. ... [Was this a routine disposition, or were there overriding business considerations?] ... The Appellant submits that the consideration he received was the credit to his shareholder loan account with CHL, and nothing more. ...

But it did not pay for the assets immediately, nor does the consideration for them appear to have been agreed upon between the syndicate and the company. ... The four members of the syndicate had agreed upon that consideration. ... This being so, it appears to me that when Ponder took possession of the asset the [Page 671] consideration which it was to pay had been agreed upon by everyone who was in a position to determine the intent of that company as to the consideration which it should pay. ...