Search - consideration

In addition to the powers conferred on her by law, my testamentary executor shall be entitled: (a) to sell, exchange or otherwise alienate all of the movable and immovable property included in my estate on the terms and for a price in money or any other consideration she considers appropriate, and to receive such price or consideration and give a receipt therefor; (b) to borrow any sum of money and, for that purpose, to pledge or hypothecate my movable or immovable property, as appropriate; (c) to agree to a transaction, compromise or settlement, or to arbitration, in respect of any claim by or against my estate, inter alia by giving or receiving any immovable in payment of any debt owed by or to my estate, and to grant discharges or releases; (d) to make any investments she considers appropriate, without being subject to articles 9810 et seq. of the Civil Code; (e) to effect any partition of my property herself and, for this purpose, to appraise the property, form shares thereof and allocate them to the persons concerned using whatever methods she considers appropriate, without any authorization or judicial formalities, even if one of my lega- tees is a minor, an incapable person or an absentee, in which case such legatee shall be represented by my testamentary executor; (f) to permanently decide any question that may arise during her administration, realization of property, liquidation, partition, etc., her decisions to be final and binding on all of my legatees, with no possible appeal; (g) to draw from the capital of my estate any sum of money of which any of my legatees may be in urgent need and, inter alia, to use any sum of money required for the upbringing, education, board or clothing of my minor legatees, if any. ...

This giving in payment is made in consideration for the full and final release by the creditor of the debtor for all sums owed to it in principal, interest, costs and incidentals, under the following deeds: AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION $250,000 Exhibit A-6 is the bid for repair work. ...

Those provisions [5] read as follows: 66(12.6) Where a person has given consideration under an agreement to a corporation for the issue of a flow-through share of the corporation and, during the period commencing on the day the agreement was entered into and ending 24 months after the end of the month that included that day, the corporation has incurred Canadian exploration expenses, the corporation may … in respect of the share and within that period or within 30 days thereafter, renounce, effective on the date on which the renunciation is made or on such earlier date as may be set out in the form prescribed... to the person in respect of the share... those expenses incurred by it during that period. ... Subsection 66(12.6) provides that where a person (Appellant) has given consideration ($300,000) under an agreement (Flow-Through Agreement) to a corporation (SC) for the issue of a flow-through share and, during the period commencing on the day the agreement was entered into [June 9, 1988] and ending 24 months after the end of the month that included that day [July 1, 1990] the corporation has incurred E, it may within that period or within 30 days thereafter, renounce effective on the date on which the renunciation is made or on such earlier date as may be set out in the form prescribed... to the person in respect of the share [Appellant] the amount of expenses incurred by it during that period. ...

According to White, consideration was being given (and cost estimates made (Exhibit A-15)) to moving one of the Walnut houses to Richardson or perhaps to Bruce because he could raise more money by putting the Walnut houses on separate lots. ... The Appellant and White both say that these undertakings were not related to severances and possible sale but reflected financial considerations and requirements. ...

In light of these additional considerations, the Court may adopt an interpretation in which the ordinary meaning is modified or rejected. ... Apart from tax considerations, it would have been foolish for the Gustafsons to have proceeded to construct their new home knowing it was not satisfactory- in the sense of being incapable of meeting the special needs of the appellant’s husband- and, upon completion of construction, to undertake, forthwith, the necessary modifications in order to make it not only accessible but capable of permitting him to be as mobile and functional within the dwelling as possible considering the restrictions imposed by his disability. ...

[Emphasis added.] [14] It is apparent from the passage in Auton that a legislative choice to accord a particular benefit under the legislation under consideration can potentially give rise to a valid claim that subsection 15(1) of the Charter has been infringed. ... Accordingly, I conclude that the legislative choice not to extend the METC to include the cost of Dietary Supplements in the definition of medical expenses in subsection 118.2(2) of the ITA does not constitute direct discrimination. [16] The matter of discrimination by effect requires a consideration of whether the non-inclusion of a particular benefit is consistent with the purpose and scheme of the impugned legislation. ...

EGR purportedly paid the vendors cash or refined pure gold (zero-rated goods) as consideration for EGR’s alleged purchases of scrap gold from them. ... The process of purchasing debased gold, refining it, returning it as consideration to the vendors, and debasing it again for resale was repeated many times over to create the false appearance of significant bona fide commercial activity occurring between EGR and the vendors, when in fact this was not the case at all. [3] [6] In respect of EGR’s above-referenced tax appeal, in late 2020 EGR and the respondent Crown agreed to conduct documentary discovery by way of section 82 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (Rule(s), Rule 82, etc.). [7] Rule 82 is headed, “List of Documents (Full Disclosure)”. ...

Income Report included in the Book of Documents. [9] There is no dispute that the auditor’s thoughts, assumptions, analyses and conclusion developed in her report, or explained by her in discovery, do not bind the Court in its consideration of Procon’s appeal from the assessments in issue. ... This filing states that Procon “is making its investment decision on the bases of economic and financial considerations”. 8) The press release announcing the planned divestment of Procon’s shares in that issuer is headed “divestment of Procon investment … as a result of US regulatory review” and again describes Procon’s Holding as an “ investment ”. 9) The Procon Group Business Plan for Future Growth at the relevant time set out that:- Its growth strategy would initiate direct equity investments in its clients, by owning and investing in direct investments into specific projects and obtain mining contracts as a condition of the investment.- Its Incremental/ Future Growth Initiative included Resource Equity Investments.- This Investment Strategy would provide long-term revenue and earnings for Procon.- Procon contemplated taking one of the issuers public within two to five years when it might have a one billion dollar market capitalisation. ...

Therefore, this decision is for interest that accumulated since January 1, 2004. [27] The balance of the decision went on to explain why additional relief was not warranted for either group of taxpayers, based on considerations that applied equally to both groups. [28] In the more detailed Third Independent Review: Overseas Credit and Guarantee Corporation (OCGC) Taxpayer Relief Report, the independent third-level review officer gave a fuller explanation of his conclusions. ... The Federal Court confined its consideration of the issue to a discussion of the impact of the ten-year limitation period in subsection 220(3.1) of the ITA. ...

The balance of $834 would be the amount, before income tax considerations are applied, which the mother should contribute to the father’s child care expenses. ... In the present case, the tax considerations taken into account by the Di- visional Court in increasing the child support payments to be made by the Appellant effective December I, 1992, are certainly an indicator of retroac- tivity and, as in the Larsson case, may defeat the presumption against retro- activity. ...