Search - consideration

This transfer was made for no consideration at all. Mr. Enrico Lisi was the sole shareholder, sole director and sole officer of both 257 and 661 such that the two corporations were not dealing at arms-length. 257 was a management company; it managed the affairs of 661 as well as that of other corporations. 661 was involved in the construction business. ... The transfer of funds in the amount of $998,460 from 661 to the Appellant on January 3, 2003 was a transfer of property for no consideration between two corporations who were not dealing at arm’s length. [8]   The fourth criterion is in issue. ... In Loates, the taxpayer was not challenging the tax debt but rather the Minister’s assumptions that the consideration he provided was less than the fair market value of the transferred property. [60] It is not a decision about the calculation of interest. ...

One consideration may point so Clearly that it dominates other and vaguer indications in the contrary direction. ... The payments here were not made apart from the trade or business operations of the appellant but were made as part of them as consideration for providing and operating the pellet facilities. ... Transfer of property for consideration either in money or its equivalent. ...

If the MacNaughtons were the recipients of the Tobacco Products supplied by LBL during the Periods, then the supplies were exempt from GST pursuant to section 87 of the Indian Act because they were supplied on the Six Nations Reserve to status Indians who were registered under the Indian Act. [141] Subsection 123(1) of the ETA defines “recipient” 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; [142] In this case, after considering all of the extensive oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, it is my view that the evidence establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that the MacNaughtons were the recipients of the supplies of the Tobacco Products during the Periods. ... If paragraph (a) did not apply, it is my view that paragraph (b) of the definition of “recipient” would apply in the alternative because it is my view that the evidence establishes that the MacNaughtons were liable to pay the consideration for the purchase of the Tobacco Products. [143] With respect to the foregoing, it is my view that the evidence clearly establishes that: (a) The MacNaughtons, starting with Anne MacNaughton, carried on a retail and trading business on the Reserve for many years starting in the 1960s; (b) Roberta MacNaughton, carrying on business as Nickel and Dime and as Grandview Variety, carried on a retail and trading business since approximately 1995 on the Reserve; (c) The MacNaughtons, including Roberta MacNaughton, retail and trading business included the purchase and sale of tobacco products, including cigarettes, loose tobacco and cigars; (d) The CRA was aware that there was, at the relevant times, a widely held view amongst Indians in Canada that their trading activities were exempt from GST; (e) The MacNaughtons, including Roberta MacNaughton, intended and orally agreed to purchase the Tobacco Products from Lumsden for resale on the Reserve; (f) Lumsden intended and orally agreed to sell the Tobacco Products to the MacNaughtons on the Reserve; (g) Lumsden and the MacNaughtons entered into legally binding oral agreements for the purchase and sale of the Tobacco Products on the Reserve; (h) The Tobacco Products were sold and delivered by Lumsden to the MacNaughtons on the Reserve; (i) Lumsden looked to the MacNaughtons to pay the consideration for the Tobacco Products; and (j) Lumsden had no legal relationship with the MacNaughton’s customers, including Roberta MacNaughton’s customers, and those customers had no legal obligation to pay Lumsden for the Tobacco Products. [144] I note that virtually all of the Respondent’s witnesses, including Roberta MacNaughton and the former Lumsden employees, considered Roberta MacNaughton, and not her customers, to be Lumsden’s client and the person liable to pay for the Tobacco Products. ...

They both agreed to receive lesser consideration for their real estate. ... It chose instead to receive the bulk of its share consideration in the form of Class C non-voting shares. ... They chose what new assets the Appellant would buy and what shares they would receive in consideration. ...

Templeman, LJ put the matter of this consideration in this way at p 978 in W T Ramsay v IRC, [1979] WLR 974:... ... Whether their intention is the company’s intention depends on the nature of the matter under consideration, the relative position of the officer or agent and the other relevant facts and circumstances of the case. ... The following are the considerations which impel me to that conclusion. ...

The scope. of the subsection is not obscure for one does not speak of benefitting a person in the sense of the subsection by making a business contract with him for adequate consideration. ... I agree with both Thurlow, J. and Strayer, J. in their characterization of the purpose of the subsection and, specifically, I concur with their view that the subsection reasonably cannot have been intended to cover benefits conferred for adequate consideration in the context of a legitimate business relationship. ... I turn then to a consideration of the income tax consequences of the dividend payments. ...

In order to decide these two objections of the appellant it becomes necessary to return to a consideration of the statutes and regulations. ... After much consideration, I cannot say that these regulations exceed the power vested in the Lieutenant-Governor in Council under the authority of subsection 4. ... This claim was made before the Board and, although it does not seem to have received as much consideration there as it did before us, it was considered by them. ...

It is not a contract for consideration. The Trust Deed is to define the rights and responsibilities of those in that relationship. ... Antle sued Stratos for that additional consideration and it was Mr. Antle that recovered that amount. ... Antle who, under duress, agreed to have the additional consideration paid to Stratos. ...

In Black's Law Dictionary [4.02(38)]: A contract whereby, for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a specified subject by specified perils. ... An agreement by which one party for a consideration promises to pay money or its equivalent or to do an act valuable to the other party upon destruction, loss, or injury of something in which the other party has an interest. ... The Court should find that their payment made by the taxpayer, consideration of one per cent (1%) of his gross annual rental income to one of his creditors is deductible under 20(1)(e) in consideration who had provided him with credit for the construction of an office building. ...

No additional or contingent amounts were included in the purchase price for consideration for the transfer of the losses. ... The fact that this advice included tax considerations was no surprise because John Zaytsoff provided advice on all of his deals. ... McGavin indicated that tax considerations did not play a role in his decision to invest in the partnership. ...