Search - consideration

(s)                 By means of an adjusting entry (#35) dated July 31, 2004, the Appellant created an account receivable in the amount of $124,848 in consideration of other purported sales to Ferblanterie Alexandre and D.H.  ... Analysis   [16]          The first question for consideration is whether St-Isidore was eligible for the ITCs claimed in respect of the invoices of D.H.  ...   [22]          In addition to the technical considerations, one must determine whether the invoices of D.H.  ...

  [21]     The position of the Respondent does not take into consideration the facts of which I took judicial notice of and which are very prevalent in society today. ... Ontario (Minister of Finance), 2004 CarswellOnt 3491, 190 O.A.C. 157, where the following was noted:   [49]      While prior administrative policy is not determinative of the correct interpretation of a statutory provision, such policy is entitled to appropriate consideration by the court. ...   [50       Binnie J.'s observation in Will-Kare is particularly apt in a case where there is some ambiguity or lack of clarity in the legislative provision under consideration. ...

.-- The methods used by a person in a fiscal year to determine (a) the extent to which properties or services are acquired, imported or brought into a participating province by the person for the purpose of making taxable supplies for consideration or for other purposes, and (b) the extent to which the consumption or use of properties or services is for the purpose of making taxable supplies for consideration or for other purposes shall be fair and reasonable and shall be used consistently by the person throughout the year. [62]     Where the activities are mixed, that is, there are both taxable and exempt supplies, an allocation must take place. ...   [69]     The consideration under the Pyrox contract was $2,877,282, including taxes, which means $180,993.66 in GST and $103,424.95 in QST. ...

Regulation 56 of the PBA states that “the pension benefits accrued during the period a member had a spouse shall be determined as if the member terminated employment at the valuation date in accordance with the terms of the plan at that date and without consideration of future benefits, salary or changes to the plan”. ...       [13]    If the taxability of the amounts of $556.00 per month in the hands of the recipient is a relevant consideration, in my view the payments of $556.00 per month are not superannuation or pension benefits in the hands of the appellant’s former wife. ... Neither the conduct or condition, nor the needs or means, of either of the partners to the marriage have anything to do with the earned right of each of them to share in the property of the marriage — except to the limited extent that these factors may incidentally touch upon the existence and extent of an exemption, exception, or equitable consideration mentioned in the Act.   ...

Furthermore, in the deed dated August 17, 1998, it is indicated that the amount of the consideration to be $400,000 and that, under section 18 of the Act respecting duties on transfers of immovables, the transfer was not subject to the $4,500 transfer duties ... Leblanc acknowledged that he had resold that property one or two years later for a consideration of $125,000 and an immovable. ... To try to counter the negative effect of his response — that the immovable given in exchange only had a value of $40,000, which, added to the sum of money of $125,000, resulted in a total consideration of $165,000, Mr.  ...

Collin, the Appellant's spouse, made the same admission to the same subparagraph 6(p) in the Reply to the Notice of Appeal in the case of the company Les Serres de la Pointe inc. [25]     As for Nathalie Bédard, who is responsible for the case, she explained why and how she came to recommend the following conclusion (Exhibit I-1, page 11): [translation] (VIII)       RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the notices by the Minster be issued indicating that Paul Perrot Pelletier, while working for Les Serres de la Pointe inc. during the period of June 30, 2003, to September 5, 2003, performed employment excluded from insurable employment under subparagraph 5(2)(i) of the Employment Insurance Act because it was employment within an arm's length relationship. [26]     All the facts analyzed and taken into consideration were consistent with those submitted by the Appellants. ... The Appellant did not receive any wages for his work during the month of June, which alone made up almost half the company's annual total sales. [29]     Income in July was $7,503 and in August, $6,345; these two months, second and third in terms of income generated, are also the period during which the Appellant performed 200 hours of work for wages of $2,400 for the Centre Louise-Amélie inc., from July 14, 2003, to August 29, 2003. [30]     In general, the facts taken into consideration are the same as those submitted by the Appellants, which were presented in a detailed, complete and honest way; they did not attempt to hide or conceal anything. [31]     As for the Respondent's analysis, it was done professionally and seriously where nothing was presumed without justification. ... The employment is therefore excluded under paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Employment Insurance Act. [55]     The evidence submitted by the Appellants was consistent with all the elements available and taken into consideration during the exercise of the discretionary power. [56]     In Pérusse, No. ...

With respect to paragraph 10 of the Notice of Appeal, he admits that the Appellant provided management services and equipment rentals to Hypercore for consideration totaling $13,268.00 in the 1995 fiscal period (the "1995 fee") but he has no knowledge of whether or not the fee was paid in the 1995 fiscal period and therefore does not admit that the Appellant was not paid the above noted amount as at December 31, 1995. 7.          ... With respect to paragraph 16 of the Notice of Appeal, he admits that the Appellant provided management services and equipment rentals to Hypercore for consideration totaling $60,015.00 in the 1996 fiscal period (the "1996 fee") but he has no knowledge of whether or not the fee was paid in the 1996 fiscal period and therefore does not admit that the Appellant was not paid either the 1995 or the 1996 fee as at December 31, 1996. 10.        With respect to paragraph 22 of the Notice of Appeal, he admits that the Appellant provided management services and equipment rentals to Hypercore for consideration totaling $54,624.00 in the 1997 fiscal period (the "1997 fee") but he has no knowledge of whether or not the fee was paid in the 1997 fiscal period and therefore does not admit that the Appellant was not paid the 1995 fee, the 1996 fee or the 1997 fee as at December 31, 1997. 11.        ...

Alain Gamache to invest in Industrie d'émaillage Acryteck in consideration for the corporation's debt or share capital. ... (g) a taxpayer's loss, if any, from the disposition of a property, to the extent that it is (i) a superficial loss, (ii) a loss from the disposition of a debt or other right to receive an amount, unless the debt or right, as the case may be, was acquired by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property (other than exempt income) or as consideration for the disposition of capital property to a person with whom the taxpayer was dealing at arm's length, [...] 50. (1) For the purposes of this subdivision, where (a) a debt owing to a taxpayer at the end of a taxation year (other than a debt owing to the taxpayer in respect of the disposition of personal-use property) is established by the taxpayer to have become a bad debt in the year, or (b) a share (other than a share received by a taxpayer as consideration in respect of the disposition of personal-use property) of the capital stock of a corporation is owned by the taxpayer at the end of a taxation year and (i) the corporation has during the year become a bankrupt (within the meaning of subsection 128(3)), (ii) the corporation is a corporation referred to in section 6 of the Winding-up Act that is insolvent (within the meaning of that Act) and in respect of which a winding-up order under that Act has been made in the year, or (iii) at the end of the year, (A) the corporation is insolvent, (B) neither the corporation nor a corporation controlled by it carries on business, (C) the fair market value of the share is nil, and (D) it is reasonable to expect that the corporation will be dissolved or wound up and will not commence to carry on business and the taxpayer elects in the taxpayer's return of income for the year to have this subsection apply in respect of the debt or the share, as the case may be, the taxpayer shall be deemed to have disposed of the debt or the share, as the case may be, at the end of the year for proceeds equal to nil and to have reacquired it immediately after the end of the year at a cost equal to nil. 54: "disposition'' of any property, except as expressly otherwise provided, includes (a) any transaction or event entitling a taxpayer to proceeds of disposition of the property, (b) any transaction or event by which, (i) where the property is a share, bond, debenture, note, certificate, mortgage, agreement of sale or similar property, or an interest in it, the property is redeemed in whole or in part or is cancelled, (ii) where the property is a debt or any other right to receive an amount, the debt or other right is settled or cancelled, [...] 125(7) "specified investment business" carried on by a corporation in a taxation year means a business (other than a business carried on by a credit union or a business of leasing property other than real property) the principal purpose of which is to derive income (including interest, dividends, rents and royalties) from property but, except where the corporation was a prescribed labour-sponsored venture capital corporation at any time in the year, does not include a business carried on by the corporation in the year where (a)     the corporation employs in the business throughout the year more than 5 full-time employees, or (b) any other corporation associated with the corporation provides, in the course of carrying on an active business, managerial, administrative, financial, maintenance or other similar services to the corporation in the year and the corporation could reasonably be expected to require more than 5 full-time employees if those services had not been provided; 125(7) "personal services business" carried on by a corporation in a taxation year means a business of providing services where (a) an individual who performs services on behalf of the corporation (in this definition and paragraph 18(1)(p) referred to as an "incorporated employee"), or (b) any person related to the incorporated employee is a specified shareholder of the corporation and the incorporated employee would reasonably be regarded as an officer or employee of the person or partnership to whom or to which the services were provided but for the existence of the corporation, unless (c) the corporation employs in the business throughout the year more than five full-time employees, or (d) the amount paid or payable to the corporation in the year for the services is received or receivable by it from a corporation with which it was associated in the year; 125(7) "active business carried on by a corporation" means any business carried on by the corporation other than a specified investment business or a personal services business and includes an adventure or concern in the nature of trade; 248(1) "active business", in relation to any business carried on by a taxpayer resident in Canada, means any business carried on by the taxpayer other than a specified investment business or a personal services business; 248(1) "small business corporation", at any particular time, means, subject to subsection 110.6(15), a particular corporation that is a Canadian-controlled private corporation all or substantially all of the fair market value of the assets of which at that time is attributable to assets that are (a) used principally in an active business carried on primarily in Canada by the particular corporation or by a corporation related to it, (b) shares of the capital stock or indebtedness of one or more small business corporations that are at that time connected with the particular corporation (within the meaning of subsection 186(4) on the assumption that the small business corporation is at that time a "payer corporation" within the meaning of that subsection), or (c) assets described in paragraphs 248(1) "small business corporation" (a) and 248(1) "small business corporation" (b), including, for the purpose of paragraph 39(1)(c), a corporation that was at any time in the 12 months preceding that time a small business corporation, and, for the purpose of this definition, the fair market value of a net income stabilization account shall be deemed to be nil; [24]     The Appellant's testimony concerning the two transactions for which he claims an ABIL is very ambiguous, to say the least. ...

An amended section such as the one under consideration should contain explicit language about its application respecting assessments already made under the replaced legislation. It is noted that three different interpretations of its application, one from Appellant's counsel, one from Respondent's counsel and one from the Court are advanced in the consideration of its applicability. ... The 1988 loss was approved after consideration by the Minister, notice by letter having been given by Revenue Canada that the loss claim would be reviewed. ...

He stated: The criteria by which the exercise of a statutory discretion must be judged have been defined in many authoritative cases, and it is well settled that if the discretion has been exercised bona fide, uninfluenced by irrelevant considerations and not arbitrarily or illegally, no court is entitled to interfere even if the court, had the discretion been theirs, might have exercised it otherwise.... and again, at paragraphs 36 and 37: Thus, by limiting the first stage of the Tax Court's inquiry to a review of the legality of ministerial determinations under subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii), this Court has merely applied accepted judicial principles in order to strike the proper balance between the claimant's statutory right to have a determination by the Minister reviewed and the need for judicial deference in recognition of the fact that Parliament has entrusted a discretionary authority under this provision to the Minister. ... I believe that the Appellant did whatever was necessary during the whole year, including the bookkeeping after the barn painting ceased for the year. [37]     Thus, I am satisfied that the Minister took into consideration all the relevant circumstances and at the same time, did not take into consideration irrelevant facts. ...