Search - consideration

In other words, the Respondent may, at the time of his investigation, analysis and study conclude that the work was carried out in such a way that the non-arm's length relationship should not be taken into consideration. [8] Thus, employment excluded from insurable employment due to a family relationship may become insurable if the person responsible for studying the file, after analysing all the circumstances, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, arrives at the conclusion that the relationship in no way shaped or influenced the contract of employment. [9] When an appeal relates to a decision resulting from the discretion under subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Appellant must first of all prove that the discretion was improperly exercised. ...

Traboulsi transferred his house to his brother Georges, who transferred it back to him once the bankruptcy was over for consideration that was lower by more than $10,000. ...

(e)         the Appellant registered for the purposes of the Act effective January 1, 1991, and was assigned GST registration number 120220132; (f)          the Appellant was required to file its returns on a quarterly basis, with a year end of December 31st; (g)         at all material times the Appellant did not file any returns for the reporting periods ending during the relevant period; (h)         any input tax credits which the Appellant claims it is entitled to were not claimed on a return for a reporting period ending during the relevant period; (i)          during the relevant period the consideration paid or payable by the Appellant for the supplies of taxable property and services it acquired was no more than $559,053.53; (j)          the Appellant was entitled to input tax credits of no more than $39,315.47 for the relevant period; (k)         the Appellant's suppliers correctly verified that during the relevant period no more than $39,315.47 was paid or payable as tax for the supplies of property and services they made to the Appellant; (l)          the Appellant has no documentation, which includes the prescribed information required by sections 2 and 3 of the Input Tax Credit Information Regulations, to support that it is entitled to input tax credits in excess of $39,315.47 for the relevant period;... ...

A deal was made between them, according to the Appellant, whereby, in consideration of Lee's assistance in acquiring the W land, the Appellant would pay Lee 25% of the profits derived from the development of it, up to a maximum of $3,000,000. ...

Last, there is no evidence that by embarking on this business, the Appellant was merely seeking a tax subsidy by deducting the cost of what was in reality a personal expenditure. [12] In this case, certain circumstances beyond the Appellant's control are relevant and must be given consideration. ...

I further conclude the tenancy activities were entered into by the Appellant in an effort to support the assets acquired with the hope the properties would increase in value by way of inflation. [23] In summary, the lack of a developed business plan, the extensive history of losses from the pre, current and post taxation years, the high leverage to the point gross revenues could not cover interest payments and the inability or the lack of initiative to reduce the leverage or increase the capitalization overwhelmed the commerciality analysis. [24] The Appellant with the hope that inflation with respect to her properties would make her acquisition of the properties valuable without any other discernible significant planning or practical consideration leads this Court to the conclusion that objectively there were insufficient elements of commerciality to draw, for the taxation years in question, an inference that the property rental activities of the Appellant was a business. ...

The only witness was Feoktist, one of the Appellants; he relied on his memory for the details of what went on during the years 1992, 1993 and 1994 and understandably his testimony was mostly vague and incomplete rather than reliable. [14]     Taking into consideration all of the circumstances, including the testimony of the Appellant and the Revenue Canada auditor, the admissions and documentary evidence provided by the Respondent, in the light of the well-established case law, I am satisfied that the Appellants have failed in their onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the Minister was ill-founded in fact and in law in his reassessments. [15]     Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. ...

The same anomaly would occur in 1993. [21] These considerations cast serious doubts on the appellant's estimate of his personal expenditures. [22] Two further points should be mentioned. ...

On August 26,1988, the Appellant and Walker conveyed the Property to 780441 Ontario Limited ("the Company") for a nominal consideration of $2.00. ...

In my opinion, one can scarcely speak of the absence of a personal element in this situation- particularly since there is no evidence indicating that, at the time the taxpayers agreed to purchase the property for $159,000, consideration was given to whether the townhouse could be rented profitably. ...