Search - consideration

Indeed, according to the Act, it is true that anyone can pay the registrant (in this case, Caterpillar), but on the condition that this payment is not made as consideration for the supply (the units, in the case before us). ... Acton paid Caterpillar in consideration for the units it acquired as part of its business operations. ...

Archambault J found that the $15 fees of the registrant were consideration for supplies of services to the travel agencies, but that such supplies were exempt supplies under three aspects of the financial services definition, of which the most apt were paras. ... (n) (consideration for a taxable supply) and (t) (prescribed service). ...

She received consideration for this supply in the form of a guarantee made by Ms. ... Richards be a supply for consideration in order for her to be a particular individual. ...

In consideration, the Funds agreed to pay Funding Corp a portion of the management fees that otherwise would have been payable by them to the Fund manager (the “Manager”) and which the Manager had agreed to relinquish (the “Earned Fees”), which were expressed to be fees paid by the Funds for the services rendered to them in the U.S. by Funding Corp in arranging for the daily funding of the brokerage commissions. ... CRA assessed on the basis that the Earned Fees were consideration for an imported taxable supply. ...

. … Although the judgment of the Superior Court is not binding on the respondent and is not res judicata, the conduct of the parties, both before and after the concluding of the transaction, clearly demonstrates their true intention to purchase and sell the shares of Quatre Saisons for nominal consideration and not for consideration based on the future sales of lots. ...

After finding that each purchased interest qualified as a qualified investment, D'Arcy J then found that such mortgage interests had a fair market value that equaled rather than being less than the cash consideration paid by the RRSPs therefor, so that s. 146(9)(b) was not engaged, stating (at paras 68- 70, and 72): They paid a price negotiated with an arm’s length vendor, namely Mr. ... …[P]aragraph 146(9)(b) does not apply in a situation where a taxpayer directs his/her RRSP to make an investment with an arm’s length party for what the taxpayer believes is a fair market value consideration and the investment turns out to be a poor investment. … Justice Sharlow … [in Arnaud] concluded that paragraph 146(9)(b) did not apply to the case before her since there was no collateral arrangement. … [T]he appellants here did not enter into any collateral agreement that would have allowed them to recover their loss in whole or in part. ...

The Agreement provided that the fees of AC were payable by CIBC “in consideration of AC referring or arranging for Aeroplan members and other members of the public to make Card Applications and in consideration of AC performing its other obligations herein which are incidental to the foregoing.” ...

He then added (at para. 51): I believe that the Crown’s stubborn clinghold to the Tariff amount, and its incorrect view that this Court needs to identify a principled reason to depart from the Tariff, gives rise to Rule 147(3)(g), (h) and (i) considerations. These, in addition to (a), (b) and (e) considerations, all favour a higher award of costs on this costs motion. … ...

However, there was “an indirect transfer from the Appellant’s mother to the Appellant by means of a trust for no consideration at a time that her mother owed tax” (para. 84) for s. 160(1) purposes respecting not only the transfer to her of her share of the residue of the trust but also regarding the transfer to her of other funds out of the trust funds including the payment out of such funds of legal fees relating to this tax dispute (which Graham J regarded as a personal rather than an estate expense) – so that the taxpayer was liable under s. 160(1) for such amounts. There was not such liability regarding the payment to her of $4.500 in executor’s fees, which were consideration for her services. ...

CRA had incorrectly accepted the computation of GST in the statements of adjustment as being 6/106 of the agreed consideration for the purchase plus the new housing rebate amount that was assigned by the buyer to the appellant, rather than only 6/106 of the agreed consideration. ...