Search - consideration

The consideration given by the appellant for these acquisitions was: (a) $15,000 cash, subject to the provisions of clause two of the said agreement; (b) $10 cash to Sonograph, pursuant to clause four of the said agreement; plus (c) the appellant’s agreement to arrange credit for Sonograph and Semco in the amount of $20,000 for settlements with creditors, pursuant to clause three of the said agreement. ... As to this, upon a full review and consideration of the facts in this case, since these debentures (a) came into existence for a full consideration in a market over which the appellant had no control, (b) the discounts arose unfortuitously by a capital loss to the original owners thereof, and (c) were purchased by the appellant in an arm’s length transaction, the purchase price thereby representing the then market value; and since the gain, being the amount of these said discounts, to the appellant, from the redemption of these debentures arose, in part, from the indirect efforts of the appellant through J. ... As to this, again, upon a similar review and consideration of the facts, for the same reasons stated above in answering the first question for decision, I am of opinion that the said sums are not income from a source within the meaning of Section 3 of the Income Tax Act. ...

Watts Limited in consideration of their leases being surrendered. The transaction was closed on November 15, 1955. ... Subsection (6), clause (g) of that section is: “ (6) For the purpose of this section and regulations made under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11, the follow-: Ing rules apply: (g) where an amount can reasonably be regarded as being in part the consideration for disposition of depreciable property of a taxpayer of a prescribed class and as being in part consideration for something else, the part of the amount that can reasonably be regarded as being the consideration for such disposition shall be deemed to be the proceeds of disposition of depreciable property of that class irrespective of the form or legal effect of the contract or agreement; and the person to whom the depreciable property was disposed of shall be deemed to have acquired the property at a capital cost to him equal to the same part of that amount.’’ ... In the circumstances surrounding the sale of the property to Peter, it is not reasonable to regard any part of the $395,000 sale price as being the consideration for the disposition of the buildings. ...

A proper consideration of the issues involved requires a somewhat detailed review of the history of Calgary Iron and Engineering Limited and its predecessor, Calgary Iron Works Limited. ... By an agreement dated January 2, 1952, he purchased the assets of the old company for a consideration which included payment of $225,000 and assumption of debts. ... However, I attach little significance to the provision that the Company would pay him an annual fee in consideration of his agreement to guarantee its credit. ...

R. [7] the Court stated, at pages 268-69: Paraphrasing paragraph 6(3)(b) and paragraph 6(3)(c), where an amount is received by a person in satisfaction of an obligation arising out of an agreement made by that person and the payor immediately prior to, during or immediately after a period when the person was employed by the payor, that payment is deemed to be remuneration during the period of employment subject to this exception: if it is established that the amount received cannot reasonably be regarded as consideration or partial consideration for entering the contract of employment, it will not be deemed to be remuneration. ... It has not been established that this payment “cannot reasonably be regarded as having been received as consideration or a partial consideration for... entering into the contract of employment”. On the contrary, it is clear that the payment arising from the satisfaction of the obligation that arose under this agreement was received as “consideration or partial consideration” for entering into the contract of employment. ...

)   [53]     The Crown submits that, although YSI is liable for the consideration under the agreements with suppliers, Platinum is the person that is ultimately liable for that consideration. ... In my view, YSI is the only person that is liable for the consideration under the agreements with suppliers. ... In this case, Platinum was not liable to pay the consideration under the agreements with suppliers ...

The appeal from the assessment made for the 1997 taxation year is allowed, and the assessment is referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment on the basis that, for the purposes of subsection 237.1(7.4) of the Act, the amount of the consideration received or receivable in the year is $726,000 instead of $771,000.           ... The penalty assessed was calculated as being equal to 25% of the amount of the consideration received or receivable from a person for each of the taxation years in respect of the tax shelter before an identification number was issued for the tax shelter. ...             $9,900 > $10,000- (70% of $10,000) = $3,000             $9,900 > $3,000 [5]      At the hearing, the parties agreed that the total consideration received or receivable was instead $566,000 for the taxation year ended on June 30, 1996, and $726,000 for the taxation year ended on June 30, 1997. ...

Pursuant to an agreement dated January 26, 1961 the appellant acquired the assets of another corporation, Adolph’s Taxi Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Adolph’s), also engaged in the operation of taxicabs in the City of Winnipeg, for a total consideration of $104,441.65. ... The sum of $72,031.65 was attributed by the Minister as consideration for “something else’’. I have concluded that the consideration which can be reasonably regarded as being in part for ‘‘something else’’ was, in fact, the consideration for the privilege of assuming the position of Adolph’s before the Taxicab Board and the reasonable expectation of the appellant being able to expand its business to that extent. ...

(b)        acquires property for a consideration greater than the fair market value of the property at the time of the acquisition,   the difference between the fair market value and the consideration, if any, shall be included in computing the income for the taxation year of the annuitant under the plan.     146.3(4)           Where at any time in a taxation year a trust governed by a registered retirement income fund   (a)        …   (b)        acquires property for a consideration greater than the fair market value of the property at the time of the acquisition,   2 times the difference between that fair market value and the consideration, if any, shall be included in computing the income for the taxation year of the taxpayer who is the annuitant under the fund at that time ...   [21]     In my view, the appropriate starting point for consideration of subsection 146(9) of the Act is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. ... This being the case, where the provision under consideration is found in an Act that is itself a component of a larger statutory scheme, the surroundings that colour the words and the scheme of the Act are more expansive. ...

  [30]          In making its decisions on these motions, there are two groups of considerations to be dealt with. The first group for consideration are the non‑Charter issues and the consideration of Rule 54 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure). ...   [35]          The parties attempted to agree upon a test case and that consideration took a considerable period of time. ...

As well, all of the consideration for the purchase of the property from the estate was provided by Mr. ... DeMarco and Murray DeMarco personally for no consideration.   [36]     With respect to Mr. ... DeMarco did not receive any consideration for his half interest would support their evidence in this respect ...