Search - consideration

The appellant and Ann Pruden availed themselves of the election opportunity offered by subsections 85D(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, and completed Form T2022, filed as Exhibit R-7, setting out the total accounts receivable and the consideration of $1 paid by the purchaser. ... The appellant was represented by W Green, CA, who submitted that assuming the liabilities of the business the appellant ought to be able to deduct same from the accounts receivable as assumption of liability is also part of the consideration. ... It is obvious that the portion dealing with accounts receivable and the consideration therefor was of some benefit to Ann Pruden. ...

The hearing was held in camera at Toronto, Ontario on February 25, 1975 pursuant to an order of this Board dated October 24, 1974 that the matter be dealt with at the next available sittings in the appropriate district. 2 The question in respect of which the Minister requests a determination by this Board is whether the whole or any part, and, if any, then what part, of the amounts of $75 per week paid by Ferro Structural Steel (Toronto) Limited to William Spira were paid (a) as a consideration for the sale of shares by Spira to Randell and Salamon, or (b) were paid for services rendered by Spira to Ferro. 3 The three individual taxpayers in this matter held various holdings in the following companies: Ferro Structural Steel (Toronto) Limited Ferro Erectors (Toronto) Limited Halton Steel Joist Limited, and in a partnership known as Ferro Holdings. 4 By March 1969 a tight money situation had developed because of Ferro's declining sales and, as a result, policy differences arose among the three shareholders who are the subject of this application. 5 Spira was blocking the expansion plans of Randell and Salamon, and it is apparent to the Board that his services were no longer really wanted by his associates. ... </p>] (6) Spira agrees to be employed and Randell and Salamon agree to cause Ferro Structural Steel (Toronto) Limited to employ Spira as a consultant at a salary of $3,900 per annum, payable $75.00 per week commencing April 1st, 1969, and running until the 1st day of November, 1974... 7 Under an agreement dated March 31, 1969 between Ferro Structural Steel (Toronto) Limited and William Spira, Ferro purportedly engaged Spira from April 1, 1969 at the rate of $75 per week, the agreement to come to an end when the final instalment was paid up to and including November 1, 1974. 8 The language of section 2 of the agreement of March 28, 1969 is precise and says, in effect, that the consideration for the sale of Spira's shares and partnership interest shall be a contract of employment for Spira plus $2 in cash, which makes the contract of employment part of the agreement for the sale of Spira's holdings. 9 It was adduced in evidence that Spira was never asked to render any service, and Spira testified that it was never intended that he should perform any services as a consultant. ... Accordingly, I find that what Spira agreed to sell and what Randell and Salamon agreed to purchase were Spira's holdings and not his services, and that the consideration for the shares was $20,000 plus $2. 13 The Board therefore determines as a fact (a) that the amounts of $75 per week paid by Ferro to Spira were paid as consideration for the sale of shares by Spira to Randell and Salamon; (b) that the payments were of a capital nature; and (c) that Randell and Salamon, in respect of their 1969, 1970 and 1971 taxation years, each received a benefit pursuant to subsection 8(1) of the Income Tax Act. ...

It concerns a situation in which a person with an outstanding tax liability transfers property to another person without receiving adequate consideration. ... Wall did not testify. [5] The trial judge was not persuaded by either of these submissions. [6] With respect to the consideration paid, Ms. Pillon testified in the Tax Court that she had given full consideration because the transfers were simply repayments of loans that she had made to Mr. ...

That consideration, which is the cost to the appellant, was the issue of the $200,000 par value of the shares. ... Accordingly, when fully paid shares are properly issued for a consideration other than cash, the consideration moving from the company must be at the least equal in value to the par value of the shares and must be based on an honest estimate by the directors of the value of the assets acquired.’’ ... In my opinion, the consideration paid by the appellant for the 905 lots was the par value of the shares issued and nothing more. ...

The former expression is defined in subsection 123(1) as follows: “recipient” of a supply of property or a service means: (a) where consideration for the supply is payable under an agreement for the supply, the person who is liable under the agreement to pay that consideration, (b) where paragraph (a) does not apply and consideration is payable for the supply, the person who is liable to pay that consideration, and (c) where no consideration is payable for the supply, (i) in the case of a supply of property by way of sale, the person to whom the property is delivered or made available, (ii) in the case of a supply of property otherwise than by way of sale, the person to whom possession or use of the property is given or made available, and (iii) in the case of a supply of a service, the person to whom the service is rendered, and any reference to a person to whom a supply is made shall be read as a reference to the recipient of the supply. [34]         I now turn to the case law. ... Zia was supplied the property when he signed the agreement of purchase and sale (section 133), and he was a “recipient,” as defined, because he was liable for the consideration under the agreement. ... 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. [56]         As noted above (Pecore, supra), the distinction between legal and beneficial ownership is one that arises out of equity. ...

Also, there was no consideration or inadequate consideration given by the Appellant to the Appellant’s spouse, for the transfer of the money, save and except the contribution which the Appellant made to the increased value of the property by the maintenance and repair which she did to the property. ...   [29] Having regard to my comments in paragraphs [22] and [23] hereof, what is the value of the consideration that the Appellant gave for a transfer of the proceeds of the sale, or what is the value of her beneficial interest in the property (since the consideration could be valued as the same amount as the actual beneficial interest)? ... The amount allowed by CRA was $4,291.34 and this was an amount allowed by CRA after consideration of the information and documentation provided by the Appellant. ...

The value of the consideration for the supply is deemed to be the fair market value of the supply. ... Databank is the supplier of services which are not financial services to the banks under and by virtue of the Agreement dated 17th July 1969 for a consideration paid by the recipient of those services.... 28         The services by Databank enable the banks to supply financial services to their customers for an exempt consideration. Databank does not supply services of any kind to the customer for a consideration. ...

Statutory framework [14]            Pursuant to subsection 165(1) of the Excise Tax Act, a person who pays consideration for a taxable supply made in the course of a business activity is required to pay GST equal to the statutory rate multiplied by the value of the consideration. ... That requires consideration of sections 138 and 139 of the Excise Tax Act ... Since the three elements are integrally connected and there is a single consideration, there is a single supply ...

The learned judge, after due consideration of the evidence, accepted the respondent’s testimony to this effect and we can see no “palpable or overriding” error of fact that would entitle us to intervene. ... This would of course be a proper matter for consideration in any determination as to whether the rule should be waived. ...

The terms and considerations according to which Randol Gault availed himself of this proffered transfer of the late Mr. ... THAT in consideration of the said sale and transfer the Purchaser hereby undertakes to pay to the Vendors: (a) 50% of all commissions paid on policies issued or renewed for any clients of the late Herbert J. ... Maurice Boisvert, Q.C., writing: ‘‘I am satisfied that the dominant consideration in the memorandum of agreement... was that of an agency based upon the division of revenue rather than one of sale.’’ ...