Search - consideration

" The development levies which were so reimbursed by the home purchasers were found to be part of the taxable consideration for such home sales, with the result that Mattamy was found to have been understating the sales price to the purchasers. As the new housing rebates ("NHRs") of the purchasers (which they had assigned to Mattamy and which it had rebated to them as contemplated in s. 234(1)) decreased as the sales price increased above $350,000, this increased taxable consideration decreased the NHRs which were properly claimable on some of the sales. ... Because the amount of a NHR is a function of the consideration for the home, it follows that a reasonable person would have known that some of the amounts paid or credited by Mattamy in respect of Purchasers' NHR claims were excessive. ...

MFT then sold these preferred shares to "McClarty" (the family patriarch, holder of the Class A voting shares of MPSI and sole trustee of MFT) in consideration for a demand promissory note of $48,000. ... McClarty then sold his preferred shares of MPSI to a corporation ("101 SK") of which he was the sole shareholder and director in consideration for a $48,000 demand promissory note, which 101 SK then repaid out of cash proceeds received by it on the redemption of the preferred shares. The taxpayers alleged that these cash proceeds were used by McClarty to repay another loan (not described above) that had been made to him by MFT rather than the $48,000 promissory note that had been the consideration for his purchase of the preferred shares. ...

Akbari was a bare trustee and that only the Appellant was a “particular individual” for the purposes of subsection 254(2) of the ETA, it necessarily follows that the Appellant was also the person “who was liable under the agreement to pay the consideration” for the purpose of the definition of a “recipient”. ... Akbari for the consideration changes nothing to the notion that it is the Appellant, as legal and beneficial owner, who was ultimately liable for the consideration under the terms of the Trust Declaration. ...

R & S then appealed to the Tax Court and took the position in its pleadings that the allocation of consideration between partnership-interest and non-partnership interest consideration set out on the (T2059) election form did not reflect the actual agreed allocation. ... [I]f… the taxpayer disagreed with the fair market value upon which the Minister had reassessed, the taxpayer could object to, and ultimately appeal from, the resulting reassessment. … Other key facts, such as the allocation of consideration among transferred properties, are no different than fair market value. … The Minister is bound by the agreed amount because it is something that the parties have elected. ...

Immediately before the closing of the sale to MDPC, the taxpayer exchanged all his commons shares of MDPC under s. 86 for preferred shares with a redemption value of $2 million and for new common shares of MDPC, and then immediately sold 85% of those common shares equally to his wife and two children for nominal consideration. ... In finding that the taxpayer’s wife and two children did not become the beneficial owners of 85% of the new common shares until the transfer to them for nominal consideration, Hogan J stated (at paras 127 and 130): [T]here is no evidence that shows that the Appellant conveyed a beneficial interest in the aforementioned shares prior to the completion of the purchase and sale arrangement with his family member. ... There is nothing in the SPA that suggests that the Appellant had granted to his wife and two daughters the right to acquire the 85 Class B, C and D common shares for nominal consideration. ...

The Queen, 2018 TCC 157-- summary under Supply Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Supply property manager's share of rents in rental JV was not taxable consideration A corporation (MC) acted as a property manager for the rental properties of 10 corporations (the “Owners”) with which it did not deal at arm’s length in consideration for a percentage of the rents and other gross revenues that it collected. ... MC took the view tht its share of the gross revenues was not consideration for a taxable supply made by it to the Owners. ...

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.” ... …[T] here is no evidence that CIBC would have been prepared to pay consideration to Aeroplan for any of the separate elements on their own, and Aeroplan issued invoices to CIBC in respect of its “participation in the Aeroplan Program” for each of CIBC’s credit cards, generally computed with reference to the number of Aeroplan Miles issued during the relevant billing period. ...

The Queen, 2021 TCC 25, aff'd 2023 FCA 76-- summary under Paragraph 3(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Regulations- Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations- Section 3- Paragraph 3(b) invoices showing nil tax and not allocating between the included zero-rated and exempt supply complied with s. 3 A professional corporation’s orthodontics practice claimed input tax credits on the basis of an administrative arrangement of CRA with the Canadian Dental Association under which orthodontists filed their GST returns using 35% of the patient’s total treatment cost as an estimate of the consideration for the supply of the orthodontic appliance (which was zero-rated), with only the balance treated as exempt- and with a requirement, when the annual results became available at year end, to reconcile their 35% ITC estimate with their actual taxable supplies. However, in the view of CRA, the corporation did not comply with the requirement under this policy to “identify the consideration for the zero-rated supply of the appliance separately from the consideration for the exempt supply of services” (the agreement with the patient stated that “[o]ur orthodontic fee includes a portion, up to 35%, relating to the value of orthodontic appliances,” but the invoices contained no allocation between the services and device. ...

The Queen, 2021 TCC 25, aff'd 2023 FCA 76-- summary under Subsection 169(5) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 169- Subsection 169(5) agreement with the Canadian Dental Association was an exercise of discretion under s. 169(5) A professional corporation’s orthodontics practice claimed input tax credits on the basis of an administrative arrangement of CRA with the Canadian Dental Association under which orthodontists filed their GST returns using 35% of the patient’s total treatment cost as an estimate of the consideration for the supply of the orthodontic appliance (which was zero-rated), with only the balance treated as exempt- and with a requirement, when the annual results became available at year end, to reconcile their 35% ITC estimate with their actual taxable supplies. However, in the view of CRA, the corporation did not comply with the requirement under this policy to “identify the consideration for the zero-rated supply of the appliance separately from the consideration for the exempt supply of services” (the agreement with the patient stated that “[o]ur orthodontic fee includes a portion, up to 35%, relating to the value of orthodontic appliances,” but the invoices contained no allocation between the services and device. ...

The Queen, [2006] GSTC 103, 2006 TCC 437-- summary under Subsection 153(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 153- Subsection 153(1) lease consideration not nominal because of property tax obligation The appellant leased a transit system to another municipal transit entity for rent of $1 per year, but with the lessee being obligated to pay municipal taxes imposed on the leased premises (which amounted to around $2 million per year). C Miller J noted that this obligation represented non-nominal consideration for the lease. ...