Search - consideration

The King, 2023 TCC 156-- summary under Business Source/Reasonable Expectation of Profit Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 3- Paragraph 3(a)- Business Source/Reasonable Expectation of Profit no evidence to call into question the underlying assumption in Stewart that the taxpayer pursued her clearly-commercial farming venture for profit Before going on to find that the taxpayer’s losses from a cattle operation (which were substantial both in dollar terms and relative to the revenues) were deductible as business losses before consideration of the limitation on farming-loss deductions under s. 31, Owen J stated (at paras. 103-105): The assumption underlying the test in Stewart is that a commercial activity is undertaken for profit… Consequently, unless there is some reason to question this assumption in the circumstances of a particular case, an activity that is on its face clearly a commercial activity as opposed to a personal undertaking is considered a source of income. ...

Now that MPP was an empty shell, Madison and Vanac transferred respective portfolios of rental properties to MPP in consideration for the assumption of liabilities and for the issuance of a mixture of Class B voting shares and Class C non-voting shares (with the same attributes other than being generally non-voting) so that Madison and Vanac collectively held (and in equal proportions, after giving effect to some catch-up transactions to equalize those holdings) 46.6% of the voting rights and 92.8% of the equity of MPP. ...

Corco purchased all of the appellant’s shares in consideration for issuing a $600,000 demand promissory note. ...

.$73 million (with the balance of the company sold two years later for US$63 million), the dominant shareholder of the company (James) engaged in estate freeze transactions and caused common shares representing 15% of all the common shares to be issued for nominal consideration to a trust for the benefit of present and future employees. ...

.$73 million, an estate freeze was implemented by its dominant individual shareholder, and a 15% common shareholding was issued for nominal consideration to a trust for the benefit of present and future employees. ...

This was accomplished by transferring their co-ownership interests on a s. 85(1) rollover basis to respective Newcos (“HP Newco”, in the case of Harvard Properties) in consideration inter alia for voting and non-voting shares, followed by a sale of those voting shares to an Abacus subsidiary (NH Properties) for promissory notes for under half of the sale price. ...

., transferred the shares of its subsidiary ("CAHL"), which was non-resident in Canada notwithstanding that it had been incorporated in Canada in 1929, to a newly incorporated Canadian-subsidiary of Products ("Holdings") in consideration for a common share of Holdings that had a paid-up capital equal to the fair market value of CAHL. ...

("FMI") with FMI then immediately paying $20 million to Millbank as a prepayment of one year's interest and Millbank utilizing $20 million to pay down the principal of loan owing by it to FMCC to $175 million; Lossco acquired a 99.99% limited partnership in Millbank shortly thereafter (and immediately prior to the first fiscal year end of Millbank) thereby resulting in $20 million of income of Millbank being allocated to it, which eliminated its losses; the 99.99% partnership interest was transferred for nominal consideration by Lossco to an indirect special purpose subsidiary of Lossco ("540") and 540 then was sold to Novopharm; FMCC lent $175 million to Novopharm which used those proceeds to subscribe for shares of 540; 540 made a capital contribution of the same amount to Millbank, which paid off the $175 million loan owing by it to FMCC; a year later after $20 million of interest had accrued on the loan owing by Novopharm to FMCC, FMI repaid the $195 million principal amount owing by it to Millbank, Millbank distributed this sum to its partners (substantially 540), 540 purchased for cancellation most of the shares of Novopharm and 540 for $195 million (giving rise to a deemed dividend of $20 million), and Novopharm used the $195 million to discharge the amount owing by it to FMCC (including the $20 million of interest). ...

") in exchange for a promissory note, which was satisfied (within the following serveral months) with funds that J.C. extracted from PC (by first transferring his high-basis shares of PC to a "Newco" in consideration inter alia for a promissory note, which was repaid by Newco with funds which it, in turn, extracted from PC). ...

Miller J drew the following principles to establish willful blindness in the making, assenting to or acquiescing in the making of a false statement in a return (at para 65): a) Knowledge of a false statement can be imputed by wilful blindness. b) The concept of wilful blindness can be applied to gross negligence penalties pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Act and it is appropriate to do so in the cases before me. c) In determining wilful blindness, consideration must be given to the education and experience of the taxpayer. d) To find wilful blindness there must be a need or a suspicion for an inquiry. e) Circumstances that would indicate a need for an inquiry prior to filing, or flashing red lights as I called it in the Bhatti decision, include the following: i) the magnitude of the advantage or omission; ii) the blatantness of the false statement and how readily detectable it is; iii) the lack of acknowledgment by the tax preparer who prepared the return in the return itself; iv) unusual requests made by the tax preparer; v) the tax preparer being previously unknown to the taxpayer; vi) incomprehensible explanations by the tax preparer; vii) whether others engaged the tax preparer or warned against doing so, or the taxpayer himself or herself expresses concern about telling others. f) The final requirement for wilful blindness is that the taxpayer makes no inquiry of the tax preparer to understand the return, nor makes any inquiry of a third party, nor the CRA itself. ...