Search - consideration

Under that agreement for the provision of the Subject Service, it was the employee or family member who was liable to pay the consideration for that service. ... However, the direct-billing arrangement did not negate or vitiate (although it satisfied) the employee’s or family member’s liability under the agreement to pay that consideration. ... Accordingly, as the employee or family member was the person liable, under the agreement for the supply of the Subject Service, to pay the consideration for that service, it was the employee or family member (and not Westcoast) who was the recipient of the service. ...

Before going on to find that this lease represented a supply of the system for non-nominal consideration (so that there was a change of use under ss. 209(2) and 199(3) entitling the appellant to recover the basic tax content of this asset), C Miller J accepted that s. 141.01 required the appellant to establish that its use of the system was for the purpose of making taxable supplies for consideration, stating "if a registrant is in the unique position of only making taxable supplies without consideration, then section 141.01 should apply to deny the ITCs. ...

In my view, the appropriate translation date should be when the consideration for the Common Shares was received by Agnico....... ... This is when the true consideration for the issuance of the Common Shares was received by Agnico.......Suppose convertible debentures are issued for $1,500, [and] the principal amount... is $1,100.... [T]he true consideration [for the shares on the debenture conversion] is $1,500....... ...

D’Arcy J found that the Annual Resort Fees were consideration for a service rather than intangible personal property, stating (paras. 237-8): The Appellant does not provide any rights in consideration of the Annual Resort Fee. … What it supplies is the agreement to use the Annual Resort Fees to fund its operations. … This…is the supply of something other than property. In rejecting the Appellant’s submission that it “made, in consideration of the Annual Resort Fee, separate single supplies of services in respect of each Vacation Home,” he stated (at para. 259): It made a single supply by agreeing to use the Annual Resort Fee to fund its operations…with the consideration being based upon the Appellant’s total estimated costs. ... After noting (at para. 213) that where a service relates both to real property inside and outside Canada, ss. 142(1)(d) and 142(2)(d) “deem two mutually exclusive events to occur” i.e., that supply occurs inside and outside Canada, and (at para. 272) that “the supply of the Annual Services relates in part to real property in Canada and real property outside of Canada,” and finding (at para. 288) that “the GST Act …contemplates a single supply which is either subject to tax on the whole consideration paid for the supply or not subject to tax at all,” he found (at para. 318) that this inconsistency should be resolved on the basis that: [P]aragraphs 142(1)(d) and 142(2)(d)…only apply if the single supply of a service relates solely to real property. ...

PWR transferred Class 8 equipment to 1251 under s. 85 in consideration for 348.5 Class C preferred shares of 1251 (i.e., the same number as in 2), resulting in a bump to the PUC of Mr. ... PWR transferred land and depreciable property to 1245 under s. 85 in consideration for assumed debt and for 1826 Class C preferred shares of 1251, resulting in a bump to the PUC of Mr. ... Wild transferred his 348.5 Class C preferred shares of 1251 (see 2) to 1245 under s. 85 to 1245 in consideration for Class E preferred shares 1251 redeemed those Class C preferred shares for a $348,500 promissory note. ...

The Queen, 2021 TCC 24-- summary under Subsection 160(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 160- Subsection 160(1) s. 160 did not apply to a sale of companies holding cash sales proceeds to a purchaser who purported to eliminate the tax liability Each of the five corporate taxpayers participated in the following transactions in order to increase their after-tax return from a sale of farmland in Brampton owned by five general partnerships, each owned as to 99.99% by the respective taxpayers: each taxpayer transferred its partnership interest to a newly-incorporated subsidiary on a s. 85(1) rollover basis in consideration for common shares; in January 2006, the partnerships closed the sale of the farmland with, in some cases, the proceeds being lent to the applicable taxpayer or a parent thereof following the May 31 year end of the general partnerships, the sales proceeds were distributed to the respective subsidiaries on December 28, the stated capital of the common shares held by each taxpayer in its subsidiary was increased to an amount approximating the expected sale price of the shares in the subsidiary in order to increase the ACB of those shares by the same amount; on December 29, the taxpayers entered into a share put agreement with a third party (“WTC”) entitling each taxpayer to put the shares of its subsidiary to WTC for a price equaling the after-tax value of the subsidiary plus 46% of the tax liability of the subsidiary resulting from the allocation by the general partnership to the subsidiary of the income from the sale of the farmland; on December 29, each director and officer of the subsidiary resigned and was replaced by a nominee of WTC; on December 31, each taxpayer exercised the put and closed the sale of the shares of the subsidiary to WTC, with WTC using the cash or receivables in the subsidiary (the “Property”) to discharge the payment of the purchase price immediately after the transfer of the purchased shares. ... In this regard, Owen J stated (at paras. 209-210): [I]n my view the words “consideration given for the property”, when read in the context of the entire subsection, can only mean consideration given by the transferee for the property regardless of who receives that consideration. … Subsection 160(1) is imposing a liability on the transferee for the transferor’s liability under the ITA. This can only be done in a fair and reasonable manner if the transferee receives credit for the consideration given for the property that triggers the liability. … ...

The lead taxpayer in this case took the position that the Waivers were not enforceable because a) there was no valid consideration exchanged for the taxpayer’s promise; b) the CRA created conditions whereby the taxpayer’s consent was not fully informed; and c) the Waivers were obtained by way of undue pressure brought to bear on the taxpayer by the CRA. ... Alan & Company Limited v El Nasr Export & Import Company, [1972] 2 QB 189, [1972] 2 All ER 127 … held that no consideration needed to be moving from the party which benefits from the waiver. … …If I am in error … that [no] consideration is required, I am of the view that there is good and valid consideration flowing to the Appellant. ...

The Queen, 2020 TCC 56-- summary under Section 10 Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Schedules- Schedule V- Part V- Section 10 law society funding received by CanLII was consideration for taxable supplies of its services The appellant (CanLII) was a not-for-profit corporation that operated an open-access virtual law library. ... The Minister disallowed these ITCs on the basis that CanLII provided its service for no consideration and, therefore, provided an exempt supply pursuant to Sched. ... In finding that CanLII instead was making a taxable supply, so that it was entitled to ITCs, Lamarre ACJ stated (at paras. 39-40): … I note that the definition of “consideration” in [s. 123(1) of] the ETA … states that consideration “includes” any amount that is payable for a supply by operation of law. … Therefore, I do not read the definition as imposing a requirement for an enforceable legal obligation to pay as argued by the respondent. ...

Before making more detailed findings that SO was making taxable supplies for consideration to the stewards, D’Arcy J found that SO was entitled to full input tax credits for the HST on its costs (including “administrative” charges from an oversight body), stating (at paras 75, 76, 77, 81 and 82): As discussed in my reasons in the University of Calgary... the purpose of section 141.01 is to clarify the application of subsection 169(1) to GST paid on property or services that are not used directly in the making of a specific supply in a situation where the person is making both taxable and exempt supplies. … I would not expect section 141.01 to deny the input tax credits otherwise determined under subsection 169(1) in the situation where a person is only engaged in commercial activities. …[P]aragraph 141.01(2)(a) deems property and services to have been acquired for consumption or use in the course of a commercial activity of the person, if the property and services were acquired by the person for the purpose of making taxable supplies for consideration. ... In my view, these sections apply to the fact situation before me, since all of the property and services acquired by the Appellant from the Third Party Service Providers either were acquired for the purpose of making taxable supplies for consideration or were consumed or used in the making of taxable supplies for consideration. ...

The consideration for a sale for the most part comprised a "Closing Payment" paid by the purchaser trust out of the proceeds of commercial paper issuances and "Deferred Amounts" representing most of the cash subsequently generated to the trust from the purchased mortgages net of all other outlays. ... After finding that there was a single supply of a financial service by CTM, Bowman ACJ went on to find that if this were not the case, s. 138 or 139 would have applied to deem this result to have occurred, stating (at para. 25) that the above-summarized provisions of the sale agreement "establish conclusively that the consideration for the sale of the mortgages and the servicing of the mortgages was a single consideration." ...