Search - consideration

At pp. 694-95 he stated: Therefore, upon a consideration of the above authorities, I have been led to the conclusion that a corporation, when a matter is intra vires of the corporation, cannot be heard to deny a transaction to which all the shareholders have given their assent even when such assent be given in an informal manner or by conduct as distinguished from a formal resolution at a duly convened meeting.......I have already indicated my view that in such circumstances the unanimous consent of all the shareholders given in fact is as effective to validate the transaction as if given in a formal meeting. ... Where during the course of an informal consideration of the company’s affairs there comes a point at which occurs a meeting of the minds of all those entitled to participate in a decision to do, on behalf of the company, a certain act which is intra vires followed by the actual doing of that act, then generally speaking and apart from a specific company rule or statutory. provision to the contrary, it may be said that corporate decision came into existence when that meeting of the minds occurred, despite the lack of observance of formalities pertaining to meetings and passing of resolutions.... ...

My decision not to recommend remission in this case was taken after consideration of the circumstances of your case, the relevant information and the Remission Committee’s assessment. ...   [58]      The Court adopts the words of de Montigny J.: “ I agree with the Respondent that the concept of "public interest" cannot be viewed merely in terms of the interests of any one group of taxpayers, but rather must also take into consideration the concerns of society generally. ...

In 1983 the plaintiff made proposals, apparently in writing to Amzoil, a supplier of automotive fluids and lubricants, and by telephone conversations and a written proposal to Volkswagen Canada, for their consideration as possible major sponsors. ... To the extent I include consideration of events after 1983, I do so in looking for support or otherwise for a perception of the plaintiff's plans as reasonably firm in the years here in question, 1982 and 1983, just as the plaintiff relied on later events to demonstrate that in those two years she was engaged in business with a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

., used this language: ‘True, even with that variable factor’’ (the price obtainable on a sale) ‘‘taken into consideration, the taxing authority may be able to determine that some loss is inevitable, yet when the variable factor affects the amount of the inevitable loss, it may be difficult or even impossible to devise a practical test to determine that any definite part of that loss has been sustained till by complete liquidation or sale the loss is definitely established... ... Any other view would, apart from all other considerations, introduce substantial administrative anomalies that cannot have been contemplated. ...

In consequence, on February 1, 1956 a mutual agreement was made to terminate the partnership arrangement on the basis that the silent partners would give up any capital interest in the brokerage business and their right to share in the profits in consideration of a total payment of $550,000. ... The letter agreement of January 17, 1973 and the Cohos' notes of the meeting held the previous day clearly contemplated a repayment of capital as consideration for the plaintiff’s withdrawal from the firm. ...

Capital Trust Corporation, [1921] O.L.R. 424, Middleton J. said at page 425:                 This involves the consideration of the provisions of the Absentee Act and the order made.                 ... A consideration of de facto control might be necessary where someone other than the owner of a majority of the shares had and exercised de facto control of the corporation. ...

  [7]                On December 5, 2000, Cascades sold all of the shares in PII that it held to the corporation, for consideration equal to the fair market value of those shares, thereby realizing a capital loss of $15,941,608 (adjusted cost base of $68,783,154 minus the proceeds of disposition of $52,841,546). The consideration received by Cascades was 33,025,966 common shares of the corporation ...

In consideration of the performance of those services the law firm agreed to pay 15% of the amount paid by the company on behalf of the law firm. ... Mr Power testified that the decision to entrust the performance of the administrative function of the law office to a corporation was reached after long and careful consideration. ...

., Saskatoon Parking Lot 12 Total 198 l) each parking space within the Appellant's Parkade and each parking space within a Parkade rented by the Appellant is supplied with a power outlet that can be used to power a block heater or car heater during cold days; m) each parking space within a Parking Lot rented by the Appellant is not sheltered; n) each parking space rented by the Appellant has a sign posted thereto that states the space is reserved for use by employees of the Appellant; o) access to parking spaces in the Appellant's Parkade and parking spaces rented by the Appellant was made available by the Appellant to employees and other persons the Appellant permitted to use a parking space; p) during the relevant period the Appellant granted permission to make use of and have access to parking in the Appellant's Parkade or in parking spaces rented by the Appellant to employees who were employed as either a General Manager or a Manager who participated in the Management Vehicle reimbursement Program (the "Management Program employees"); q) in addition to the Management Program employees the Appellant granted permission to the following employees to make use of and have access to parking in the Appellant's Parkade or in parking spaces rented by the Appellant, namely: i) 10 persons employed as Executives, holding office as President and Vice-President of the Appellant; ii) 20 persons employed as a General Manager who were not Management Program employees ("In-scope General Managers"); iii) approximately 250 persons employed as a Manager who were not Management Program employees ("In-scope Managers"); iv) approximately 260 persons employed in a position other than as an Executive, a General Manager or a Manager ("Out-of-scope Employees"); r) Management Program employees: i) supervised staff that were located in a number of different locations; ii) were habitually required to travel away form their regular office in the performance of their duties; iii) did not pay anything for parking spaces the Appellant supplied to them; and iv) a taxable benefit did not arise from the parking spaces the Appellant supplied to them; s) the Executives, In-scope General Managers, In-scope Managers and Out-of-scope Employees were rarely, if at all, required to travel away from their regular office in the performance of their duties; t) each of the Appellant's employees who was a recipient of a supply made by the Appellant of a parking space was assigned a stall in which to park his or her automobile in the Appellant's Parkade or in a Parking lot rented by the Appellant; u) during the relevant period the appellant granted permission to Executives and General Managers to make use of and have access to parking in the Appellant's Parkade; v) during the relevant period the appellant granted permission to employees applying for use and access to parking in the Appellant's Parkade or in parking spaces rented by the Appellant on the basis of the applicant's position and seniority within the Appellant; w) the Appellant did not realize any revenue or receive any consideration from its employees for the use of parking spaces situated within the Appellant's Parkade or rented by the Appellant other than from the In-scope Managers and the Out-of-scope Employees that the Appellant permitted to make use of and have access to parking in the Appellant's Parkade or in parking spaces rented by the Appellant; x) the permission granted by the Appellant to employees specified in subparagraph (n) above, was to make use of and have access to parking at any time for the purpose of parking a particular automobile as determined by the employee, including an automobile owned by the employee; y) the Appellant since 1991 charged In-scope Managers and Out-of-scope Employees the sum of $16.00 per month, plus $1.12 as GST for the use of a parking space during the months of April to October, and the sum of $20.00 per month, plus $1.40 as GST for the use of a parking space during the months of November to March; z) throughout the relevant period the Appellant received from each of the In-scope Managers and Out-of-scope Employees the sum of $16.00 per month, plus $1.12 as GST for the use of a parking space during the months of April to October, and the sum of $20.00 per month, plus $1.40 as GST for use of a parking space during the months of November to March; aa) the Appellant received payment by deduction from salary or wages otherwise payable in the monthly amounts specified in subparagraph (s) above, without regard to the employee's actual usage of the parking space in the month; bb) also located within the Regina downtown core area and adjacent to the Appellant's Parkade was a parking facility owned by third parties known as "the Cornwall Centre Parkade"; cc) the operator of the Cornwall Centre Parkade was engaged in the business of providing parking for profit to persons including employees of other employers with offices in the Regina downtown core area; dd) the operator of the Cornwall Centre Parkade charged the monthly sum of $85.00 per month plus GST for the right to park one automobile therein at any time at a parking space supplied with a power outlet that can be used to power a block heater or car heater during cold days; ee) also located within the Saskatoon downtown core area and adjacent to the parking facility rented by the Appellant was a parking facility owned by third parties that is known as "the Midtown Plaza"; ff) the operator of the Midtown Plaza was engaged in the business of providing underground and outdoor parking for profit to persons including employees of other employers with offices in the Saskatoon downtown core area; gg) the operator of the Midtown Plaza charged the monthly sum of $90.00 per month plus GST for the right to park one automobile therein at any time at an underground parking space supplied with a power outlet that can be used to power a block heater or car heater during cold days, and $50.00 per month plus GST for access to an outdoor parking space not sheltered and without a power outlet; hh) the Appellant rented 17 outdoor parking spaces situated within the Midtown Plaza Parking Lot located as specified in subparagraph (i) above; ii) also located within the Saskatoon downtown core area and adjacent to the parking facility rented by the Appellant was a parking facility owned by third parties that is known as "the Saskatoon Tower Parkade"; jj) the operator of the Saskatoon Tower Parkade was engaged in the business of providing parking services for profit to the persons including employees of other employers with offices in the Saskatoon downtown core area; kk) the operator of the Saskatoon Tower Parkade charged the monthly sum of $85.00 per month plus GST for the right to park one automobile therein at any time at a reserved parking space supplied with a power outlet that can be used to power a block heater or car heater during cold days, and $70.00 per month plus GST for the right to park one automobile therein at any time at a non-reserved parking space supplied with a power outlet that can be used to power a block heater or car heater during cold days; ll) also located within the Saskatoon downtown core area and adjacent to the parking facility rented by the Appellant was a parking facility owned by third parties that is known as "the Sturdy Stone Centre"; mm) the operator of the Sturdy Stone Centre was engaged in commercial activities and charged the daily sum of $6.60 per day inclusive of GST for the right to park one automobile therein at any time at a non-reserved parking space supplied with a power outlet that can be used to power a block heater or car heater during cold days; nn) the fair market value of the supply of a parking space in the Appellant's Parkade or of a parking space rented by the Appellant in a Parkade in the downtown core areas of Saskatoon and Regina was throughout the relevant period $90.95 per month, including GST; oo) the fair market value of the supply of a parking space rented by the Appellant in a Parking Lot in the downtown core areas of Saskatoon and Regina was throughout the relevant period $40.40 per month, including GST; pp) except for the GST included in the monthly payments made by the In-scope Managers and the Out-of-scope employees, the Appellant did not include any amounts in respect of the supplies of parking spaces it made to its employees in its calculation of its net tax for the reporting periods ending during the relevant period; qq) the Appellant did not account for and remit the following amounts of tax in respect of the supplies of parking spaces it made to its employees during the period of September 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992; Category of employee Calculation Parkade or Parking Lo t Unreported Tax Executives & General Managers (30 x 4) x (90.95 x 7/107) Parkade 714.00 Managers & Out-of-scope Employees (475 x 2) x [(90.95-21.40) x 7/107] Parkade 4,323.00 Managers & Out-of-scope Employees (475 x 2) x [(90.95-17.12) x 7/107] Parkade 4,588.00 Managers & Out-of-scope Employees (35 x 2) x [(40.00-21.40) x 7/107] Outdoor 85.00 Managers & Out-of-scope Employees (35 x 2) x [(40.00-17.12) x 7/107] Outdoor 105.00 Total $9,815.00 rr) the Appellant did not account for and remit the following amounts of tax in respect of the supplies of parking spaces it made to its employees during the period of January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1995; Category of employee Calculation Parkade or Parking Lo t Unreported Tax Executives & General Managers (30 x 12) x (90.95 x 7/107) x 3 Parkade 6,426.00 Managers & Out-of-scope Employees (Winter) (475 x 5) x (90.95-21.40) x 7/107 x 3 Parkade 32,419.00 Managers & Out-of-scope Employees (Summer) (475 x 7) x (90.95-17.12) x 7/107 x 3 Parkade 48,179.00 Managers & Out-of-scope Employees (Winter) (35 x 5) x (40.00-21.40) x 7/107 x 3 Parking Lot 639.00 Managers & Out-of-scope Employees (Summer) (35 x 7) x (40.00-17.12) x 7/107 x 3 Parking Lot 1,101.00 Total $88,764.00 ss) the Appellant did not deduct or withhold any amounts pursuant to the Income Tax Act in respect of parking provided to it's employees; tt) the Appellant in the course of it's operations was at all relevant times the recipient of supplies of food, beverages and entertainment; uu) the Appellant was a recipient of supplies of food and beverages from suppliers who received payment directly from the Appellant in amounts inclusive of GST in the relevant years as follows: Supplier 1992 1993 1994 1995 Beaver foods 1,515 8,606 7,937 Canway foods 45,203 103,461 114,549 112,429 Nice Bunz 4,045 5,802 Riverside 2,070 2,342 Saskatoon Club 936 6,369 8,847 Chicken Delight 340 867 554 719 Total 45,544 106,779 136,193 138,076 vv) the Appellant claimed input tax credits in respect of the supplies of food and beverages specified in subparagraph uu) above in a return for a reporting period ending during the relevant period in amounts as follows: Year Input Tax Credit claimed 1992 2,979.00 1993 6,986.00 1994 8,910.00 1995 9,033.00 ww) in addition to the input tax credits referred to in the previous subparagraph the Appellant claimed input tax credits as the recipient of supplies of food, beverages and entertainment from suppliers who received payment in transactions recorded by the Appellant in account #67321007 in amounts inclusive of GST in a return for a reporting period ending during the relevant period in amounts as follows: Year Input Tax Credit claimed 1992 6,792.00 1993 7,547.00 1994 8,385.00 1995 9,317.00 xx) in addition to the input tax credits referred to in the previous subparagraph and in subparagraph vv) the Appellant claimed input tax credits as the recipient of supplies of food, beverages and entertainment from suppliers who received payment in transactions recorded by the Appellant in accounts other than #'s 67321007 in amounts inclusive of GST in a return for a reporting period in fiscal years in amounts as follows: Year Input Tax Credit claimed 1992 2,453.00 1993 2,725.00 1994 3,028.00 1995 3,364.00 yy) the Appellant did not include 20% of the input tax credits it claimed in respect of the supplies of food, beverages and entertainment specified in subparagraphs vv) to xx) that it received prior to March 1994 and did not include 50% of the input tax credits it claimed in respect of the supplies of food, beverages and entertainment specified in subparagraphs vv) to xx) that it received after February 1994 when determining its net tax and failed to report the following amounts of tax: Fiscal Year Amount 1992 1,475.00 1993 3,451.00 1994 9,145.00 1995 10,858.00 Total $24,929.00 [8] With respect to the assumptions: (b) Not refuted. ... Rather, the Appellant and its employees were at arm's length and they made mutual deals respecting the parking in which each got consideration for what it gave. [14] Thus, any value which an employee received was for that employee's occasional use of the parking facilities for shopping or entertainment similar to the personal use described by Mr. ...

On the contrary, the true position is that on an appeal to this Court from a decision of the Income Tax Appeal Board, whether the taxpayer or the Minister is the appellant, the assessment under consideration carries with it a presumption of its validity until the taxpayer establishes that it is incorrect either in fact or in law. ... It read in part as follows: In deciding whether a personal car should be authorized for use on Government business, the first consideration should be that mileage allowance is not to be authorized if travel can be made more economically by other means of transportation without substantial impairment of the efficiency of service. 1. ...