Search - consideration

When one receives a consideration for money handed over to a person, there can be no question of a donation, even if the recipient of the payment is a charity. ... Younes did not become poorer when he paid the Order $2,200 since he obtained the use of a concert room in consideration for that sum. ... Younes did not have the necessary judgment to realize that one is not making a gift when one receives a consideration for the money paid. [30]     I also find it hard to see how his accountant could have suggested to him that he deduct as a business loss the loss incurred in organizing the concert. ...

(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.                                                                                                 ... In view of all the relevant facts, including certain legal and tax considerations, was it reasonable to expect on April 30, 1994, that Salvage would be dissolved or wound up and would not recommence business? ... Those shares were thus apparently issued, if they were in fact issued, not only after Salvage abandoned its salvage project in September 1993 but also after April 30, 1994. [12] It is therefore likely that, on April 30, 1994, Management claimed a deduction for an ABIL on shares that, in whole or in part, had not been issued. [13] However, since the Minister assessed Management on the basis that 186,010 shares had been issued as at December 31, 1993, for consideration of $186,010, I cannot blame Management for not adducing evidence that the shares were in fact issued. ...

All AGPRO wanted was a consideration of these four names and it wanted to come to the Tax Court about it. ... Further Subsection 12(4) the Tax Court of Canada Act does not give the Court jurisdiction to hear this appeal. [48] Counsel did not relinquish the argument made at the opening of the trial that what was under consideration in the case at bar was not an assessment. ... He said that the Appeals Officer considered only four names whereas he had submitted many more than that to the Minister for consideration. ...

Packaging in this context included, as well as appropriate crating and bracing, preparation of proper manifests and appropriate labelling to meet international standards respecting the transportation of dangerous goods and other regulatory considerations. [6]            In 1995 Iles joined his wife in the business full-time. ... A supply made by a carrier of a freight transportation service in respect of the transportation of tangible personal property from a place in Canada to another place in Canada, where (a) the shipper of the property provides the carrier with a declaration in prescribed form that the property is being shipped for export and that the freight transportation service to be supplied by the carrier is part of a continuous outbound freight movement in respect of the property; (b) the property is exported and the service is part of a continuous outbound freight movement in respect of the property; and the value of the consideration for the supply is $5 or more. [9]            In brief, it is the Respondent's position that the Appellant's services are pre-transportation services. ... The value of the consideration for the supply is at least $5.00. (This requirement is not in issue.) [19]          The first requirement is that the Appellant be a "carrier". ...

(“the subsidiary”); (c)                  the subsidiary has operated a furniture retail business for a number of years; (d)                  the appellant and her son Claude respectively hold 51% and 49% of the outstanding common shares in the company; (e)                  in April 1990 the market value and tax consequences of the company’s shares were the following; No. of Paid-up shares FMV ACB capital Appellant 61 $467,687 $6,100 $6,100 Claude Nadeau 59 $452,353 $5,900 $5,900 120 $920,040 $12,000 $12,000 PER SHARE $7,667 $100 $100 (f) in early 1990 the appellant decided that it was a good time for her to withdraw from the furniture retail business; (g) on June 8, 1990 numbered company 2757-6958 was incorporated under the Quebec Companies Act with the appellant’s son Claude Nadeau as its sole proprietor; (h)                  on July 20, 1990 the appellant and her son Claude transferred their Class A shares to the company in consideration of new Class A shares of the company with the following values: No. of    Legal paid-up shares FMV ACB c apital Appellant 61 A $467,687 $467,687 $6,100 Claude Nadeau 59 A $452,353 $400,000 $5,900 120 A $920,040 $867,687 $12,000 PER SHARE $7,667 $7,667 $100 (i)                    on July 20, 1990 the appellant’s son Claude Nadeau subscribed and paid $100 for 100 Class B shares; (j)                    on July 24, 1990 the company altered its articles as follows: i.                      ... the Class C shares: (I)                   were non-voting shares; (II)                 were retractable at the market value received by the company in consideration of their issue; and (III)               carried the right to a cumulative 10% dividend calculated based on the redemption price, and this right was held in preference to the Class A, B and D shares; and viii.                ... The intention was that within a few hours after the share was issued, it would be redeemed and the amount of the consideration would immediately be returned to the bank, which had loaned it. [27] Not only did L. ...

One consideration may point so clearly that it dominates other and vaguer indications in the contrary direction. ... Although the categories of capital and income expenditure are distinct and easily ascertainable in obvious cases that lie far from the boundary, the line of distinction is often hard to draw in border line cases; and conflicting considerations may produce a situation where the answer turns on questions of emphasis and degree. ... I have to wonder whether the respondent is extracting the reasoning out of the cases and erecting it into general principles without taking into consideration the specific facts of the cases. ...

He acknowledges that at no time during the period under consideration did he own or operate a business of any kind. ... I paraphrase his dicta found at paragraph 65: a)         Knowledge of a false statement can be imputed by wilful blindness. b)         The concept of wilful blindness can be applied to gross negligence penalties pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Act. . . . c)         In determining wilful blindness, consideration must be given to the education and experience of the taxpayer. d)         To find wilful blindness there must be a need or a suspicion for an inquiry. e)         Circumstances that would indicate a need for an inquiry prior to filing, or flashing red lights. . ., include the following: i)          the magnitude of the advantage or omission; ii)         the blatantness of the false statement and how readily detectable it is; iii)        the lack of acknowledgment by the tax preparer who prepared the return in the return itself; iv)        unusual requests made by the tax preparer; v)         the tax preparer being previously unknown to the taxpayer; vi)        incomprehensible explanations by the tax preparer; vii)       whether others engaged the tax preparer or warned against doing so, or the taxpayer himself or herself expresses concern about telling others. f)         The. . .   ... Miller provides an excellent template that can be used in analyzing cases such as the one here under consideration. ...

The appellant may adduce facts constituting a prima facie case which remains unanswered; but in considering whether this has been done it is important not to forget, if it be so, that the facts are, in a special degree if not exclusively, within the appellant's cognizance; although this last is a consideration which, for obvious reasons, must not be pressed too far. ... This list is not exhaustive and, in different circumstances, one factor or another may be more important. 14        While future prospects of the debtor company may be relevant in some cases, the predominant considerations would normally be past and present. ... If future considerations are only speculative, they would not be material in an assessment of whether a past due debt is collectible. 15        Nor is it necessary for a creditor to exhaust all possible recourses of collection. ...

Arm’s length parties, in such circumstances, would give Swissco negligible or nil consideration and provide Canco with all the income, commensurate with each parties’ functions and risks in the transactions. ... In paragraph 36 the Respondent states that “Arm’s length parties, in such circumstances, would give Swissco negligible or nil consideration …” and in paragraph 37 stated: [37]      … The terms or conditions between Canco and Swissco in respect of those transactions differ from those that would have been made between persons dealing at arm’s length within the meaning of paragraph 247(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act. ... Such matters should be left to the judge who hears the evidence. … [17]         In my view, the Appellant has not demonstrated the Respondent’s position has no hope of succeeding and it seems clear to me that if a trial judge accepts on the evidence that the Appellant has not demolished the Ministers assumptions, like paragraph 14(x), that assumes all substantive functions relating to Swissco’s alleged business were performed by Canco or paragraphs 14(y) and (rr) which assumes Swissco assumed no risk while Canco did, or (hhh) which assumes Swissco provides no functions of value to Canco and assumes no risk, or (mmm) which assumes Swissco would not earn any profit at arm’s length for failure to perform any functions of value to generally name and summarize a few, then such assumptions can support the Paragraph 247(2)(a) Statements that Swissco is in effect entitled to no or nil consideration in the transfer pricing regime. [18]         It should also be noted that Chief Justice Rip made it clear in paragraph 22 of his Second Order that “… discussions regarding transfer pricing methodologies are not before me at this stage…”. ...

In determining legal subordination, that is to say, the control over work that is required under Quebec civil law for a contract of employment to exist, a court does not err in taking into consideration as indicators of supervision the other criteria used under the common law, that is to say, the ownership of the tools, the chance of profit, the risk of loss, and integration into the business. [31]         The Federal Court of Appeal discussed that argument again in NCJ Educational Services Limited v. ... The consideration for the work was a lump sum of $30,000, which included the appellant’s expenses as well as his fees. ... Risk of loss and chance of profit [46]         It is clear that the consideration for the appellant’s services was a lump sum of $30,000. ...