Search - consideration

No consideration was paid by the appellant to her husband, Mr. Hewett, for his half interest in the property. ... I have given careful consideration to the appellant’s counsel’s submissions with regard to the meaning of “fair market value” as it is contained in section 160. ... I am satisfied that there was a transfer from the appellant spouse without consideration at the time when the husband transferee had an income tax liability to the Minister of National Revenue in excess of $80,000. ...

On January 6, 1987, nearly three years later, the appellant again purchased the property from Michel D'Aoust for [Translation] "the sum of $1 and other good and valuable consideration”. ... This obligation on the transferee is limited, however, to the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property that was so transferred exceeds the consideration given by the transferee. ... Counsel for the appellant argued that at the very least half the payments made by the appellant should be included in the consideration referred to in paragraph (e)(i). ...

In Fisher, supra, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the taxpayer did not show that the moneys paid by the appellant were paid in consideration of the transfer of property. ... Finally, in Carrigan, supra, the Tax Review Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant had not shown she paid any consideration for the property received from her husband. In that case the tribunal suggested clearly that proof of the payment of consideration would have had an impact on the outcome of the case. ...

In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges that the Consideration under the Original agreement was partly for the sale of the property and partly for the plaintiff’s assistance in developing the property. ... He adds that properly to compute Brampton’s 1968 income there should have been an allocation of the consideration between the property Brampton was selling and the assistance it agreed to render. ... Judgment in favour of the plaintiff with costs. 1 *85E. (1) Where, upon or after disposing of or ceasing to carry on a business or a part of a business, a taxpayer has sold all or any part of the property that was in cluded in the inventory of the business, the property so sold shall, for the purposes of this Part, be deemed to have been sold by him (a) during the last taxation year in which he carried on the business or the part of the business, and (b) in the course of carrying on the business. 2 t85B. (1) In computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year, (a) every amount received in the year in the course of a business (i) that is on account of services not rendered or goods not delivered before the end of the year or that, for any other reason, may be regarded as not having been earned in the year or a previous year, or (ii) under an arrangement or understanding that it is repayable in whole or in part on the return or resale to the taxpayer of articles in or by means of which goods were delivered to a customer, shall be included; (b) every amount receivable in respect of property sold or services rendered in the course of the business in the year shall be included notwithstanding that the amount is not receivable until a subsequent year unless the method adopted by the taxpayer for computing income from the business and accepted for the pur pose of this Part does not require him to include any amount receivable in com puting his income for a taxation year unless is has been received in the year; 3 +85E (2) Where a person who has been carrying on a business has sold all or part of the property that was included in the inventory of the business (whether or not he has disposed of or ceased to carry on that business or a part of that business) to a person who has used all or part of the property so sold as inventory of a business carried on or to be carried on by the purchaser, and the amount of the consideration paid by the purchaser is, in part, consideration for the property so sold and, in part, consideration for something else, the following rules are applicable: (a) such part of the consideration as the vendor and the purchaser have, in writ ing, agreed to be the price paid for the property so sold shall be deemed, both for the purpose of computing income from the business of the vendor and for the purpose of computing income from the business of the purchaser, to be the price so paid; and (b) where an agreement as contemplated by paragraph (a) has not been filed with the Minister within 60 days after notice in writing by the Minister has been for warded to the vendor and the purchaser that such an agreement is required for the purpose of any assessment of tax under his Part, such part of the consideration paid as is fixed by the Minister shall be deemed to be the price agreed upon by them as the price paid for the property so sold. 4 *See Fridman, The Law of Contract in Canada, 1976, c 9. 5 JHalsbury’s Laws of England para 511 (4th ed 1974). 6 *See Waiver of Conditions Precedent in Contracts, Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, 1977, p 4. ...

This is not an important revenue consideration but, rather, it is an important measure to avoid constantly suing and being sued. ... One consideration may point so Clearly that it dominates other and vaguer indications in the contrary direction. ... They merely crystallise particular factors which may incline the scale in a particular case after a balance of all the considerations has been taken. ...

It reported a capital gain equal to the full amount of the consideration and a taxable capital gain equal to two-thirds thereof. ... The issue is whether the appellant is correct in contending that the consideration was received for the disposition of a capital property. ... It had been given as consideration for the appellant’s agreement to undertake the obligations imposed upon it by the lease. ...

Firstly, they assert that consideration was given for the dividends. This argument starts with the well known principle that when a corporation declares a dividend to be payable on a certain date to its shareholders, a debt becomes payable on that date to each shareholder in the amount of the dividend. [2] The Appellants’ theory is that the shareholder pays consideration for the dividend equal in value to that dividend by giving up the right to receive which was vested in him as a consequence of the declaration. ... The word “consideration” in subparagraph 160(1)(e)(i) is to be given its ordinary meaning, namely, something given in payment. ... The right of a shareholder to receive payment of a dividend which has been declared flows from his status as shareholder and not from any consideration given by him. [3] Nothing in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Neuman v. ...

These investments were made while the tax account was in arrears, therefore it would indicate that you had funds to reply the tax debt outstanding, but the funds were used for other purposes. [5]                Both parties agree that the standard of review for a decision of the Minister (which has been delegated to officials of CCRA) under the Fairness Package is patent unreasonableness and can only be set aside if the decision under review was made in bad faith, if the decision-maker clearly ignored relevant facts or took into consideration irrelevant facts, or if the decision is contrary to law (see Cheng v. ... Consequently, this is not a case where the discretion should be exercised. [9]                While the Respondent's consideration would apply in most cases, I note that the CCRA did not take into consideration: i)           the fact that the Applicant is 72 years old and, given his chronic alcoholism and substance abuse, is unlikely to ever earn the amounts owed; ii)          the penalty and interest owing far exceed the tax owing; iii)          the Applicant at the hearing advised that he could borrow the money from a personal friend to pay the taxes owing, if penalty and interest were waived; and iv)         section 7(b) of the Fairness Package. [10]            Section 7(b) of the Fairness Package provides: When a taxpayer is unable to conclude a reasonable payment arrangement because the interest charges absorb a significant portion of the payments. In such a case, consideration may be given to waiving interest in all or in part for the period from when payments commence until the amounts owing are paid provided the agreed payments are made on time. [11]            These provisions seem to be directly applicable to this case. ...

He filed a notice of objection to the reassessment, but also applied for consideration under the fairness provisions, primarily on the grounds that he was unaware of the statutory deadline for claiming a capital claims exemption and had suffered health problems related to his tax debt. ... Khanna then sought judicial review of that decision with respect to the interest accrued from April 1998 to March 2001. [4]         On March 15, 2002, this Court (on consent) ordered the Minister to give a fresh and independent consideration to the request for interest relief because the person who had considered the initial fairness application had also made the original decision to deny Mr. ... He believes, however, that the accrual of interest from April 1, 1998 to March of 2001, when his first application for fairness consideration was submitted is unjustified and attributable to the Minister ' s failure to inform him in 1998 that the capital gains tax was due. ...

The spouse to whom the property is transferred is liable in an amount equal to the equity or net value of the property conveyed, providing no consideration was paid. [2] Subparagraph 160(1)(c)(i) of the Act reads as follows: "(i) the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at the time it was transferred exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given for the property, and... ... The Appellant testified that her husband's restaurant was doing poorly in February 1984 and to protect her Bressani Street property from possible creditors she had him transfer it to her reflecting a consideration of $40,500. ... The taxes and fine were never paid and Peter was sentenced to perform community services. 9) The deed from Peter to the Appellant showed a consideration of $40,500, which was the original purchase price. [14] After weighing all of the evidence, the Appellant has not discharged her burden of proof. [15] Counsel for the Appellant referred the Court to Elisabeth Linke v. ...