Search - consideration

The first consideration should therefore be to determine the purpose of the legislation, whether as a whole or as expressed in a particular provision. ... While this consideration has given me some pause, I have decided that it does not tip the balance in favour of the applicant’s position. First, it is a hypothetical consideration in the context of this case, and there may be reasons that have not been canvassed here for concluding that the Crown’s right to pursue an action for debt is subject to a statutory limitation period, even though the statutory collection methods are not. ...

Following the review, CRA reversed its position and stopped endorsing Health Canada’s consideration. ... It also explained that at the time when KPMG submitted the ruling request on behalf of OATC, the CRA did not consider testing for drug use eligible for consideration to be zero-rated for GST/HST purposes and that position only changed in August 2014. ... Both the jurisprudence and the CRA policy confirm that remission orders are extraordinary and highly discretionary, and that each case must be assessed in light of the particular facts, taking into consideration the competing interests to determine whether the collection of the tax would be unreasonable, unjust or otherwise not in the public interest: Waycobath, at para 18. [63] As the passage quoted by the Applicant from Vavilov also confirmed, administrative decision makers are not bound by their previous decisions and the mere fact that some conflict exists among an administrative body’s decisions does not threaten the rule of law: Vavilov at para 129. [64] While not binding on me, I note that Case Management Judge Aalto also commented in his direction dated March 30, 2020 on the production of confidential documents regarding the Foundation as follows: |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| I agree. [65] Unlike the case at hand, the circumstances surrounding the Foundation did not appear to involve complex medical/legal issues that were challenged in court or subject to years of internal policy review by the CRA. [66] The Applicant argues the Foundation has a less compelling case and yet was granted a remission order. ...

The Connecting Factors (L10/R3682/T0/BT0) test_linespace (274>256.00) 1.032 0272_5097_5265 I turn now to a consideration of the various connecting factors in this case. ... That is not, in my view, a consideration which should weigh heavily, if at all, in the balance. ... Ui) residence of the Appellants The place of residence of the Appellants is not, in my view, an important consideration in this case. ...

The Connecting Factors I turn now to a consideration of the various connecting factors in this case. ... That is not, in my view, a consideration which should weigh heavily, if at all, in the balance. ... To exempt their income would simply be to give them an economic advantage over the other employees of the company who work alongside them. iii) residence of the Appellants The place of residence of the Appellants is not, in my view, an important consideration in this case. ...

According to the Deed of Assignment (the “DOA”), [5] the consideration payable to the appellant included lump-sum payments and additional payments corresponding to a percentage of the Software’s sales. ... Huet had agreed to work for MITT for a period of three years, and the consideration payable to the appellant included lump‑sum payments and additional payments based on Software sales. ... Payments 7.1 Lump Sum Payment Schedule (a) As consideration for the assignment of the GreenHopper IP and transfer of the GreenHopper elements to MITT and the Vendors fulfilling their obligations under this deed, MITT will pay the Purchase Price as follows, subject to clause 9: (i) Payments to each of Pyxis and 4432002 of: (A) (First Lump Sum Payment): USD625,000 on assignment of the GreenHopper IP and delivery of the items referred to in clause 3.3; (B) (Second Lump Sum Payment): USD50,000 which will be owing on the 30 th Business Days after the Start Date and payable without penalty within 20 Business Days of such date; (C) (Third Lump Sum Payment): USD75,000 which will be owing on the first anniversary of the Effective Date and payable without penalty within 5 Business Days of such date; (D) (Fourth Lump Sum Payment): USD50,000 no earlier than the second anniversary of the Effective Date and payable without penalty within 5 Business Days of such date; and (E) (Fifth Lump Sum Payment): USD25,000 no earlier than the third anniversary of the Effective Date and payable without penalty within 5 Business Days of such date.... 7.3 Earn-Out Payments Schedule Subject to clauses 7.4, 7.6 and 9, MITT will pay the Earn-Out Payments to each of Pyxis and 4432002 calculated as follows and at the times referred to below: a) within 20 Business Days of the anniversary of the Effective Date an amount equivalent to 35% of all sales during the 12 months from the Effective Date plus any Earn-Out Interest; b) within 20 Business Days of the second anniversary of the Effective Date an amount equivalent to 25% of all Sales during the 12 months after the first anniversary of the Effective Date plus any Earn-Out Interest; and c) within 20 Business Days of the third anniversary of the Effective Date an amount equivalent to 17.5% of the Sales during the 12 months after the second anniversary of the Effective Date plus any Earn-Out Interest. ...

I take these facts from the application records and affidavits filed for my consideration. ... The summary report, the Applicant’s submissions, the previous request for review, correspondence in this matter, and the accompanying Departmental file material were all referred to me for my review and consideration. ... No new facts were presented for the Minister’s consideration and the letter from Janis Old was written to notify the Applicant accordingly. ...

On or about October 31, 1973, the said property was sold to Chedoke Developments Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as “Chedoke”) for the total consideration of $240,000, with a balance of the price outstanding of $150,000. ... The following paragraph from [1972] CTC 373 and 72 DTC 6353 respectively of that judgment appropriately curtails the value of that case in support of the instant appeal: After giving careful consideration to all the evidence, I am satisfied that the respondents acquired the lots here in question for the purpose of investment to the exclusion of any purpose of trading therein. ... It is also clear from his reasons that he gave consideration to the contention of Appellant’s counsel that its long history of capital investment in British Columbia indicated that its real intention in purchasing Melville 2 and 3 was in accord with its tradition of buying and holding property as long term investments which were capital in nature. ...

Mr Wright, counsel for the plaintiff, urged upon me that I take into consideration the background and personality of Mr Mentzelopoulos and the general culture of and the viewpoints of people such as he in the parts of the world in which his seemingly remarkable business talents were displayed and in which he apparently now plays an important role in business. ... Accordingly, if there be circumstances which are supportive of the purchaser’s declaration of intention or contradictory to or inconsistent with it, they, too, must be taken into consideration. ... Among the documents filed there is what purports to be a copy of a proposal by one Harold Patton to Birmount Holdings Limited to the effect that in consideration of $1,350 he is to obtain the right to utilize the lands for the period from March 1, 1970 until February 28, 1973 for the purposes of farming, subject to certain provisions set out in the proposal. ...

The Court (per Viscount Dunedin) stated as follows on page 439: Now, the cardinal consideration in my judgment is that the income tax is only one tax, a tax on the income of the person whom it is sought to assess; and that the different Schedules are the modes in which the statute directs this to be levied. ... The Court (per Noël, Associate Chief Justice, on page 600 [5008]) said: I believe that most of those criteria are what may be termed subjective ones, ie, which deal or apply to the person receiving the income rather than to the objective question of the source of the income which, in my view, is always the overriding consideration which must determine the matter. ... Apart from these provisions, I know of no special considerations to be taken into account from a legal point of view in deciding whether an activity or situation constitutes the carrying on of a business for the purposes of Part I of the Income Tax Act. ...

In the Trial Division it was alleged by the appellant and Eco that these documents had been executed for an illegal consideration, that is to say, the suppression of prosecutions for income tax evasion, and alternatively that their execution had been secured by undue influence, duress and coercion. The issue of illegality of consideration was, however, abandoned in the course of argument when counsel for the appellant conceded that there was no evidence to support the allegation, a view with which the learned trial judge agreed. ... Applying these considerations to the present situation it appears to me that if it can be said, as I think it may, that the Minister stipulated as a condition of his proceeding in the matter by way of reassessment to recover penalties incurred, as well as taxes and interest, that the appellant admit his liability, pay the amounts assessed forthwith and waive his right of appeal, the appellant did not object thereto but, on the contrary, as evidenced both by his execution of the commitment of July 2, 1964 and by his execution of the document of July 10, 1964 and his immediate payment of the amounts assessed, consented to and approved of the stipulation. ...