Search - consideration

In finding that there was a single supply made by the casino (which she later found to be a financial service), Sharlow JA stated (at paras. 25-26): [T]here is no evidence that Global would have been prepared to pay consideration to the Casinos for any of the three elements on its own. Since the three elements are integrally connected and there is a single consideration, there is a single supply.... ...

Canada, 2002 FCA 237-- summary under Subsection 153(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 153- Subsection 153(2) 50-50 allocation of consideration for two supplies made to arm’s length customers It was accepted that the appellant, who operated a “brew-your-own” beer and wine business, was providing separate supplies: the zero-rated sale of ingredients for making the beer or wine: and a taxable supply of its facilities and services to assist its customers in brewing the beer or wine. ... In affirming this decision, Evans JA stated (at para. 2): [S]ubsection 153(2), provides that the consideration for multiple supplies must be allocated reasonably among the supplies. ...

Canada, 2019 FCA 217-- summary under Paragraph (l) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Financial Service- Paragraph (l) dominant element in MFT commission funding arrangement was the payment, or the arranging of payment, of the funding A non-resident bank ("Citibank") agreed to fund the payment of the upfront brokerage commissions that were payable on the issuance of units in the Invesco/Trimark funds (the “Funds”) in consideration for receiving an assignment of a portion of the amounts that otherwise would have been earned by the Invesco manager as management fees. More precisely, the manager agreed to reduce its management fees (i.e., reduce its percentage charge of NAV), and the Funds agreed to pay the same percentage amounts to a special purpose non-resident Citibank-formed vehicle (“Funding Corp”) essentially in consideration for Funding Corp paying the brokerage commissions. ...

One of the unsuccessful arguments made by the Crown in seeking to uphold a s. 160 assessment of Newco was that the determination as to whether full consideration had been paid by Newco should be determined by the “overall result” produced by the series of transactions (para. 45). In rejecting this submission, Noël CJ stated (at para. 58) that “the adequacy of the consideration given must be measured against the value of the property transferred by way of a ‘snapshot’ taken at the point in time when the transfer takes place.” ...

FSL assigned $160,000 of the $2.4 million amount, that it was entitled to receive under the settlement agreement from the Province, to ADL in consideration for an ADL promissory note. On the same date as the exercise of the option by ADL (resulting in the Province transferring the fee simple interest in Founders Square to ADL), FSL purported to surrender the existing ground lease to the Province pursuant to a surrender agreement which stated that the consideration provided by FSL thereunder to the Province was “$10.00 and other good and valuable consideration.” ...

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 because they were not consideration for a financial service. ...

Such assessments were made on the basis that a transfer took place when the cash belonging to the subsidiaries ended up in the hands of the respondents and that the consideration given by the respondents in return (the shares of the subsidiaries) had no value. Noël C.J. found that the transfer of cash from the subsidiaries to the respondents consisted of a transfer of cash from the subsidiaries to WTC, which was a non-arm’s length transfer occurring for no consideration (and, thus, subject to s. 160) and a second transfer of the cash from WTC to the respondents, to which s. 160 applied if the respondents did not deal at arm’s length with WTC. ... In rejecting the Crown’s submission that each respondent was liable for all of the subsidiary’s tax debt, Noël C.J. found (at para. 95) that the phrase “consideration given” reflects “Parliament’s intention to limit the derivative liability of transferees to the monetary advantage that they derive from the transfer”. ...

The trial judge had essentially applied the test in s. 168(3)(c) that consideration is not due until work is "substantially completed. ... Before concluding that, in these circumstances, an invoice should have been issued for the partially completed work, Noël J. stated (at paras. 32-33): The difficulty this reasoning raises is that according to the very terms of paragraph 152(1)(b), the issuing of an invoice may be unduly delayed even if the work has only been partially completed, since the provision speaks of an invoice "in respect of the supply for that consideration or part. ...

Respecting the weight to be given to the parties' allocation, he stated (at para. 75, 78, after citing Gabco): [A]n amount can reasonably be regarded as being consideration for the disposition of a particular property if a reasonable business person, with business considerations in mind, would have allocated that amount to that particular property....That the parties to an arm's length transaction have agreed on an allocation is an important factor to consider, but an agreed allocation which does not meet the reasonableness test may still be challenged under section 68. ...

Respecting the failure of the Minister to consider the s. 220(2.1) request, Woods JA stated (at para. 30): There is no evidence that the Minister gave any consideration to the request for a waiver pursuant subsection 220(2.1). In light of this, it is appropriate to remit the matter back to the Minister for consideration. ...