Search - consideration

It reads: 256.21 (1) If a sales tax harmonization agreement with the government of a participating province allows for rebates in respect of residential property relating to the new harmonized value-added tax system in respect of that participating province, the Minister shall pay in prescribed circumstances a rebate in respect of prescribed property to a prescribed person, or a person of a prescribed class, equal to an amount determined in prescribed manner. [21]         A person is a ‘prescribed person’ or ‘prescribed individual’ if they meet the requirements found in subsection 41(2) of the Regulations, which reads: Rebate in Ontario 41(2) If an individual is entitled to claim a rebate under subsection 254(2) of the Act in respect of a residential complex that is a single unit residential complex, or a residential condominium unit, acquired for use in Ontario as the primary place of residence of the individual or of a relation of the individual, or the individual would be so entitled if the total consideration (within the meaning of paragraph 254(2)(c) of the Act) in respect of the complex were less than $450,000, for the purposes of subsection 256.21(1) of the Act, the individual is a prescribed person and the amount of a rebate in respect of the complex under that subsection is equal to the lesser of $24,000 and the amount determined by the formula A × B where A is 75%; and B is the total of all tax under subsection 165(2) of the Act paid in respect of the supply of the complex to the individual or in respect of any other supply to the individual of an interest in the complex. ...

It is clear that the Appellant was paid by the Corporation in consideration of the chaplaincy services rendered at the Hospitals. ...

These provisions read as follows: 325 (1) Tax liability re transfers not at arm’s length — Where at any time a person transfers property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means, to (a) the transferor’s spouse or common-law partner or an individual who has since become the transferor’s spouse or common-law partner, (b) an individual who was under eighteen years of age, or (c) another person with whom the transferor was not dealing at arm’s length, the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay under this Part an amount equal to the lesser of (d) the amount determined by the formula A-B where A     is the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at that time exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given by the transferee for the transfer of the property, and B     is the amount, if any, by which the amount assessed the transferee under subsection 160(2) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the property exceeds the amount paid by the transferor in respect of the amount so assessed, and (e) the total of all amounts each of which is                                                           (i)      an amount that the transferor is liable to pay or remit under this Part for the reporting period of the transferor that includes that time or any preceding reporting period of the transferor, or                                                         (ii)     interest or penalty for which the transferor is liable as of that time, but nothing in this subsection limits the liability of the transferor under any provision of this Part. 325 (2) Assessment — The Minister may at any time assess a transferee in respect of any amount payable by reason of this section, and the provisions of sections 296 to 311 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require. 325 (5) Meaning of “property” — In this section, “property” includes money. ...

In Granovsky, the Supreme Court of Canada stated at paragraph 58 that: The question therefore is not just whether the appellant has suffered the deprivation of a financial benefit, which he has, but whether the deprivation promotes the view that persons with temporary disabilities are “less capable, or less worthy of recognition or value as human beings or as members of Canadian society, equally deserving of concern, respect, and consideration. ...

This expression is defined as follows in section 122.6: shared-custody parent in respect of a qualified dependant at a particular time means, where the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of the definition eligible individual does not apply in respect of the qualified dependant, an individual who is one of the two parents of the qualified dependant who (a) are not at that time cohabitating spouses or common- law partners of each other, (b) reside with the qualified dependant on an equal or near equal basis, and (c) primarily fulfil the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant when residing with the qualified dependant, as determined in consideration of prescribed factors. [17]         Qualified dependent is defined as follows: qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) has not attained the age of 18 years, (b) is not a person in respect of whom an amount was deducted under paragraph (a) of the description of B in subsection 118(1) in computing the tax payable under this Part by the person’s spouse or common-law partner for the base taxation year in relation to the month that includes that time, and (c) is not a person in respect of whom a special allowance under the Children’s Special Allowances Act is payable for the month that includes that time; [18]         Section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations (Regulations) sets out a list of factors to be considered when determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant. 6302  6302. ...

  [21]         I now turn to a consideration of the other issues.   Was Seahorse a CCPC?   ...

MNR, 2006 FCA 48, by stating that subjective intention of the parties is evidence to be considered, but the consideration of the factors in Wiebe Door remain the proving ground for the express intention of the parties. [5]              More recently and perhaps more fulsomely, the Federal Court of Appeal in 1392644 Ontario Limited v. ...

It applies only in the context of section 231, which is concerned with the general subject of inspection, search and seizure in aid of enforcement of the Act, where far different considerations apply. ...

Tardif J. stated:   15        Although the appellant's submissions were unusual and even surprising, they were neither far-fetched nor unreasonable enough for it to be concluded that he made a wilful default or mistake with the intent to escape from his Canadian tax obligations.   16        Firstly, he expressed his objection, and secondly, he took initiatives to show that his allegations had merit, while taking into consideration the fact that certain income, specifically, pension income paid to a citizen who lives in a country other than the one that pays the pension, is not taxed ...

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]   ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER (disposed of upon consideration of written representations)   [1]              The applicant, the Municipality of Larouche, submitted a motion seeking leave to intervene and make representations at the hearing of the appeal under section 28 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) [1] (Rules) ...