Search - consideration

The assets and liabilities of Brantford Coach and Body Limited were disclosed in its financial statement for December 31, 1963 and 1964 and can be summarized as follows: Assets Cash accounts receivable $2,703,398 Inventory... 2,724,920 Plant and Equipment less depreciation — 775,082 Other 696,052 $6,899,452 Liabilities $3,138,577 Deferred income tax.A. 74,470 Capital contributed 700,000 Earned surplus 2,986,405 $6,899,452 The sale price to Novo Industrial Corporation was allocated in the books of Brantford Coach and Body Limited as follows: The outstanding shares of Brantford Coach Realty Limited $ 329,946 Fixed assets other than real property, 457,017 Inventory of work in progress and raw materials required to complete work in progress 652,496 Intangible assets 10,000 Total $1,449,459 The consideration received by Brantford Coach and Body Limited from Novo Industrial Corporation was, (1) by cash payment $1,192,743.00 (2) by assumption of liabilities 296,716.00 $1,449 459.00 The agreement of sale between Brantford Coach and Body Limited and FRP Products Limited, which latter company was dormant and possessed of negligible assets, as vendors and Novo Industrial Corporation as purchaser was executed on May 21, 1965. ... In the fall of 1965 Deltona of Canada Limited sold lands it owned in the Province of Quebec and in the city of Ottawa for the respective considerations of $277,500 and $160,000. ... Accordingly it is a fair inference that following the sale of the business of Brantford Coach and Body Limited to Novo Industrial Corporation on May 21, 1965 that the directors of the appellant began serious consideration of ways by which the investment could be paid to the appellant without attracting tax or so as to attract the minimum tax both in Canada and the United States. ...

These factors should then be analyzed to determine what weight they should be given in identifying the location of the property, in light of three considerations: (1) the purpose of the exemption under the Indian Act; (2) the type of property in question; and (3) the nature of the taxation of that property. ...   [33]         In the circumstances, therefore, this is at best a neutral consideration in my analysis of the connecting factors; it does not assist in any way in establishing that Ms.  ... In any event, these considerations do not allow me to depart from a proper application of the law to the appeal in question before me which relates solely to her claim for a section 87 exemption for 1998 and 1999 in respect of her income from working at the training centre ...

He urged that the appellant Grunbaum's trips to Israel were motivated mainly by business considerations. ... Having regard to the evidence presented, I am not satisfied that the main purpose of these trips related to business considerations or motives. ... No motives or considerations of a personal nature ascribable to the appellant Grunbaum have been established that relate to the portion of the expenses of the wedding reception that were made or incurred in relation to the business guests. ...

At page 692-93 (D.T.C. 6573) he adds: Taking into consideration the facts established, the precedents and legal commentary cited, the Court concludes that the payments as a whole were made in order to purchase the equipment; indeed, the total amount of the payments made during the period of alleged rental are wholly deductible from the purchase price, and correspond exactly to the purchase price of the equipment plus interest payable, during the period of alleged rental, on the balance of the purchase price. ... The lease of things is a contract by which the lessor binds himself towards the lessee to grant him the enjoyment of a thing during a certain time, for a consideration, the rent. ... Appeal), at page 240 (D.T.C. 6182). 5 [1976] 1 F.C. 159 at page 170. 6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act under which an appeal is made, the Court is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in conducting a hearing for the purpose of that Act, and all appeals shall be dealt with by the Court as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit. ...

  [54]         During the relevant years, paragraphs 7(1)(a) to (d) read as follows:   7. (1) Agreement to issue securities to employees — Subject to subsections (1.1) and (8), where a particular qualifying person has agreed to sell or issue securities of the particular qualifying person (or of a qualifying person with which it does not deal at arm’s length) to an employee of the particular qualifying person (or of a qualifying person with which the particular qualifying person does not deal at arm’s length),   (a) if the employee has acquired securities under the agreement, a benefit equal to the amount, if any, by which (i) the value of the securities at the time the employee acquired them exceeds the total of (ii) the amount paid or to be paid to the particular qualifying person by the employee for the securities, and (iii) the amount, if any, paid by the employee to acquire the right to acquire the securities is deemed to have been received, in the taxation year in which the employee acquired the securities, by the employee because of the employee’s employment;   (b) if the employee has transferred or otherwise disposed of rights under the agreement in respect of some or all of the securities to a person with whom the employee was dealing at arm’s length, a benefit equal to the amount, if any, by which (i) the value of the consideration for the disposition exceeds (ii) the amount, if any, paid by the employee to acquire those rights shall be deemed to have been received, in the taxation year in which the employee made the disposition, by the employee because of the employee’s employment;   (c) if rights of the employee under the agreement have, by one or more transactions between persons not dealing at arm’s length, become vested in a person who has acquired securities under the agreement, a benefit equal to the amount, if any, by which (i) the value of the securities at the time the person acquired them exceeds the total of (ii) the amount paid or to be paid to the particular qualifying person by the person for the securities, and (iii) the amount, if any, paid by the employee to acquire the right to acquire the securities, is deemed to have been received, in the taxation year in which the person acquired the securities, by the employee because of the employee’s employment, unless at the time the person acquired the securities the employee was deceased, in which case such a benefit is deemed to have been received by the person in that year as income from the duties of an employment performed by the person in that year in the country in which the employee primarily performed the duties of the employee’s employment;   (d) if rights of the employee under the agreement have, by one or more transactions between persons not dealing at arm’s length, become vested in a particular person who has transferred or otherwise disposed of rights under the agreement to another person with whom the particular person was dealing at arm’s length, a benefit equal to the amount, if any, by which (i) the value of the consideration for the disposition exceeds (ii) the amount, if any, paid by the employee to acquire those rights shall be deemed to have been received, in the taxation year in which the particular person made the disposition, by the employee because of the employee’s employment, unless at the time the other person acquired the rights the employee was deceased, in which case such a benefit shall be deemed to have been received by the particular person in that year as income from the duties of an employment performed by the particular person in that year in the country in which the employee primarily performed the duties of the employee’s employment; and [55]         If the appellant and Forages Garant are dealing with each other at arm’s length, the parties agree that the amounts received by the appellant would be taxable under paragraph 7(1)(b). ... The new paragraph 7(1)(b.1) reads as follows: (b.1) if the employee has transferred or otherwise disposed of rights under the agreement in respect of some or all of the securities to the particular qualifying person (or a qualifying person with which the particular qualifying person does not deal at arm’s length) with whom the employee was not dealing at arm’s length, a benefit equal to the amount, if any, by which (i) the value of the consideration for the disposition exceeds (ii) the amount, if any, paid by the employee to acquire those rights is deemed to have been received, in the taxation year in which the employee made the disposition, by the employee because of the employee’s employment; [81]         The respondent submits that the amendment was a clarification of the ITA, as indicated in Annex 5 of the 2010 Budget: [22] Budget 2010 also proposes to amend the income tax rules to clarify that the disposition of rights under a stock option agreement to a non-arm’s length person results in an employment benefit at the time of disposition (including cash out).   ...

Pensée, considération, jugement, conclusion auxquels conduit cette activité de l’esprit: Se laisser aller à des réflexions amères. ... Any consideration of remembering necessarily involves a consideration of the nature of memory. ...

In deciding whether to exercise the right to authorize entry and search the Court noted that the Minister would be governed by the dominant consideration of public interest and his duty as an executive officer of government to administer the Act. ... (as Le Dain, J. then was) held that the provisions under consideration amounted to neither a search nor a seizure. ... Under the legislation which I must consider, the board, or a person designated by it, has the power to enter and inspect any place without prior approval, although that power is not specifically now under consideration. ...

The absence of such considerations may then become a relevant factor towards the inference that the transactions abused the provisions at issue, but there is no golden rule in this respect...... 61         A proper approach to the wording of the provisions of the Income Tax Act together with the relevant factual context of a given case achieve balance between the need to address abusive tax avoidance while preserving certainty, predictability and fairness in tax law so that taxpayers may manage their affairs accordingly. ... Subsection 112(1) applied to offset the dividend. f)         Hygiene issued 636276 a $261,493 note payable as consideration on the share redemption. ... The consideration received was 100 Class "B" shares of MEPC redeemable for $4,221.55 per share. ...

At the hearing, however, counsel advised that the only issues remaining for the Court’s consideration were the Appellant’s entitlement to a deduction of approximately $6 million as his share of a loss in the Seaview Trading Partnership and to certain childcare expenses in 2003. ... Canada [61], the Federal Court of Appeal described the two-step procedure in the operation of subsection 103(1) as follows:   Having found that subsection 103(1) applies because there is a sharing of income and the principal reason for the agreement [between the appellant and the new partner] was the reduction of tax otherwise payable, this brings us to the second question to be answered, i.e. whether the allocation of income to the partners was reasonable. [62] [63]     As there was an agreement to share in specified proportions between the Appellant and Ethical, the second prong of the first criterion requires consideration of whether the principal reason for that agreement “may reasonably be considered” to have been “to reduce or postpone the tax” otherwise paid or payable. It is notable that unlike in subsection 103(1.1), there are no listed criteria for determining the reasonability of that consideration; under subsection 103(1), it is only after the triggering factors have been met that regard may be had to “all the circumstances including the proportions in which the members have agreed to share” partnership losses ...

Considerations and conclusion As I read the cases that have been cited to me, I conclude that in order to characterize an activity as processing within the meaning of section 125.1 there must at the least be a change in form or appearance of the product being processed. ... This raises for consideration counsel for the plaintiff's argument that regardless of the lack of any change to the form or appearance of the actual tablets and capsules, packaging itself is a process. ... In consideration of the granting of the loan, Freeman and Easton executed two such documents of guarantee in favour of the bank for the liability of their companies in the principal sum of $150,000, on October 3, 1979 and September 30, 1980 respectively. ...