Search - consideration

In accordance with Mother"s Pizza, use of the space in the buildings is the most important consideration in determining the use primarily made of the buildings. However, that does not exclude other considerations and we are prepared to assume, without deciding, that in a case such as this, a qualitative assessment is also relevant. ... However, he found this consideration was irrelevant to the question of whether a building was used primarily for processing. ...

Mah's evidence makes it clear that there was no other reason for this transfer except as payment in consideration of the plaintiff's transferring of the properties to the partnership. ... Counsel for the defendant invites me to characterize the transaction as one in which the properties in question were transferred to the partnership in consideration of an interest in the partnership and a cash payment of $950,000. ... The consideration received for that transfer was, however, as counsel for the defendant argues, both a partnership interest, and the $950,000 paid as a cash payment a few days after the transfer. ...

The consideration received by John LePage was $83,000, made up of eight debentures of $10,000 each and a promissory note for $3,000. ... J; In none of these realization cases was there an out and out transfer by former owners for a cash consideration. ... LePage transferred properties which had cost them approximately $42,000 for a consideration of $144,000. ...

He assessed the expert evidence of the appellant and respondent and, after a detailed consideration of that evidence, expressed his preference for the evidence of the respondent's expert which supported capitalizing the expenditure. 4.        ... The expert evidence dealt with distorting the appellant's expenses and income as a consideration in the expensing-capitalizing determination. ... There is no error in his having regard to these considerations. 7.        ...

I rely on the appellant's evaluation; he claims he invested more than $35,000 in his new residence without taking into consideration the uncalculated time and work he performed himself. [22]          Based on the invoices in question, the appellant stated and repeated that the evaluator neglected to take into consideration the significance of the work performed after July 2005. [23]          The expert Ouellet indicated that the appellant cooperated and provided an extensive history of the residence for which the FMV was to be established. ... Ouellet also noted that he took into consideration improvements, repairs and various additions. [24]          Although the quality of Mr. ... On this, the expert essentially stated and repeated that he took into consideration the changes, improvements, etc. [29]          In this situation, the parties' positions are at opposite extremes: the expert's work was properly done, in accordance with the trade practices. ...

In the affidavit, the Appellant swore that the true consideration paid by him for the transfer was $10 and that the current value of the land, in his opinion, was $120,000. ... However, it was because of his efforts and the money which he spent that he assumed the value of the Property was $120,000. [17]          In reality, the consideration given by the Appellant was $118,903.43. In accordance with section 325 of the ETA, the Appellant is liable for the lesser of the difference between the value of the Property and the consideration given and Albert Dobia’s tax liability at that time or any preceding reporting period. ...

In so assessing the Appellant and confirming the Assessment, the Minister relied on the same assumptions of fact as follows:   (a)        the Appellant was a partnership of Jovito Federico and Lydia Federico;   (b)        in 1993 the Appellant began operating under the trade name of Global Care and provided placement services for domestic workers from overseas;   (c)        for the placement services it provided, the Appellant received consideration in the form of a fee from both the domestic worker placed and the employer of that domestic worker;   (d)        the Appellant was a registrant as of January 1, 1997;   (e)                 the supply of placement services was taxable at 7%;   (f)                  the Appellant received consideration for placement services it provided during the Relevant Periods and on which tax was collectible as follows:   Period Supplies Collectible at 7%   1991-12-31   97,742.00   6,841.94 1998-12-31 95,061.00 6,654.27 2001-12-31 66,359.00 4,645.13   259,162.00 18,141.34   (g)                 the Appellant was required to file its return on an annual basis, with a year end of December 31 st;   (h)                 the Appellant failed to file returns and account for the tax detailed in subparagraph 9(f) above; and   (i)                   the Appellant failed to report and remit net tax of at least $11,662.30 for the Relevant Periods ... In so assessing the Appellant and confirming the Assessment, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact:   (a)        in 1993 the Appellant and Lydia Federico commenced a business as a partnership (the “Partnership”);   (b)        the Partnership operated under the trade name of Global Care;   (c)        Global Care provided placement services for domestic workers;   (d)        for the services provided Global care received a fee from both the domestic worker placed and the employer of that domestic worker;   (e)        the Partnership was a registrant as of January 1, 1997;   (f)         on or before January 1, 2000, the Appellant began operating Global Care as a sole proprietor;   (g)        the Appellant was a registrant at all relevant times;   (h)        the Appellant was required to file GST returns on an annual basis with a year end of December 31;   (i)         during 2000 the Appellant received consideration of at least $42,331.00 in respect of the placement services he provided;   (j)                  during 2001 the Appellant received consideration of at least $31,129.00 in respect of the placement services he provided;   (k)                the supply of placement services by the Appellant was subject to GST at 7% of the consideration receivable for those placement services;   (l)                   the Appellant failed to report and account for GST of $2,963.17 in respect of the placement services he provided during the reporting period ending December 31, 2000;   (m)               the Appellant failed to report and account for GST of $2,179.03 in respect of the placement services he provided during the reporting period ending December 31, 2001;   (n)                 the Appellant failed to report and account for net tax of at least $1,904.90 for the reporting period ending December 31, 2000; and   (o)                the Appellant failed to report and account for net tax of at least $1,400.81 for the reporting period ending December 31, 2001;   B.                  ...

They described the consideration as "$1.00 and other valuable consideration" and the market value as $190,000 in the transfer. ... The consideration was "$1.00 natural love and affection" and the market value shown on the transfer was $270,000 (Exhibit R-1, Tab 3). [8]            The value of $300,600 described for the 1997 transfer is based on the assessment value for 1997 determined by the British Columbia Assessment Authority (Exhibit R-1, Tab 4). ... Moreover, each bargained for something as set out on November 27, 1997, when they broke up on April 11, 1997. [15]          Thus the consideration to the Appellant on April 11, 1997 was the result of the termination of the partnership on that date and the division of assets between the parties at that time in what had become a losing venture. ...

The purchase price excess of the advertised price was in consideration of a premium lot and upgrades. ...   [7]              A "GST" article was included in the Agreement:   (a)        The parties acknowledge and agree that the Purchase Price stipulated in the within Agreement is inclusive of the Federal Goods and Services Tax ("GST") payable pursuant to the Excise Tax Act (Canada) (the "GST Legislation") and that the actual consideration for the Dwelling Unit exclusive of any extras, requested changes or adjustments as herein provided, is the amount derived by subtracting the GST payable with respect to the within transaction of Purchase and Sale (less all refunds, credits and rebates available to the Purchaser pursuant to the GST Legislation) from the Purchase Price (the "Consideration"). The Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that the Vendor shall insert the Consideration in the Transfer of the Property that the Vendor delivers to the Purchaser on the date of Closing. ...

The reasons behind the refusal to grant relief for humanitarian and compassionate considerations are clearly articulated; they are neither irrational nor arbitrary. ... In fact, that is the general rule to which an exception applies for those who can establish the existence of humanitarian and compassionate considerations. ... Even considering the situation of women—which is far from good in Haiti—the officer could reasonably conclude that the evidence on file was insufficient to justify a remedy based on that humanitarian consideration. [11]            Fifthly, concerning the best interests of her children, the applicant argues that the officer did not give enough weight to the values of the immigration system and the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, while the impugned decision causes irreparable harm to her plans for family reunification, because her eldest son just turned 18 and she will now be unable to sponsor him. ...