Search - consideration

Larsen, 99 DTC 5757 (FCA)-- summary under Subsection 1106(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Regulations- Regulation 1106- Subsection 1106(1) The taxpayer and his three siblings gave a lumber company the right to enter their land to remove timber during a five-month period for consideration of $70 per cubic metre of timber removed. ...

Canada, 2007 DTC 5580, 2007 FCA 294-- summary under Property Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Property lease was part of building, not a separate capital asset In affirming that a lump sum payment received by the taxpayer from the sole tenant of its building in consideration for the termination of the lease was received on income account rather than being compensation for the diminution in value of the lease viewed as a capital asset, Noël JA stated (at para. 28) that he saw no error in the finding below that "the sole capital asset acquired by the appellants was the building and that the long term lease was but a means of exploiting that asset. ...

The Queen, 78 DTC 6254, [1978] CTC 358 (FCA)-- summary under Subsection 180(3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 180- Subsection 180(3) "[A]n initial Appellate Court must take into consideration well-established precedents, namely: (1) where the credibility of witnesses is involved, except in extraordinary cases, the finding of the Trial Judge must not be set aside; (2) the interpretation of the evidence is left to the discretion of the judge who sees and hears the witnesses, and it is the duty of a Court of Appeal to respect the judgment of the judge who has these privileges unless it is satisfied that the latter was plainly wrong. ...

Canada, 2019 FCA 217-- summary under Section 8.1 Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Interpretation Act- Section 8.1 tax characterization not affected by securities law characterization In finding that amounts paid by mutual funds to an offshore financing entity were to be characterized as consideration for a financing service notwithstanding that, for securities law purposes, they were permitted on the basis that they were allowed as being payments for management fees, Woods JA stated (at para. 58): [T]he manner in which the arrangement would be interpreted for securities purposes does not affect the characterization of the legal relationships for taxation purposes. ...

., resort condos), which they had acquired in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, to the Appellant (which was a non-share corporation resident in Canada) in consideration for the Appellant transferring occupancy rights (a.k.a., resort points) to the vacation homes to them in perpetuity. ... In finding that these fees represented consideration for a single supply of a service, which was deemed to be made in Canada under s. 142(1)(g), D’Arcy J had stated: [P]aragraphs 142(1)(d) and 142(2)(d)…only apply if the single supply of a service relates solely to real property. ...

After determining to remit the s. 220(2.1) matter back to the minster for consideration, Woods JA then turned to the s. 220(3) decision and, after noting the position in 2013-0499421I7, stated (at paras. 40, 42, 45): The CRA’s view … is that the taxpayer relief provisions cannot affect a filing requirement which restricts the issuance of a dividend refund. ... … …I would remit [the s. 220(3) matter] to the Minister for full consideration and decision. … ...

The taxpayers acquired such FMO units from TOM in consideration for issuing $161M in promissory notes. ... The units of FMO were repurchased by FMO for nominal consideration. The appellants had full (FMV) cost for their FMO units when acquired in steps 2 and 4, and the capital gains distribution in step 6 did not reduce the ACB of their units by virtue of s. 53(2)(h)(i.1)(A) and (B)(I). ...

The taxpayers acquired such FMO units from TOM in consideration for issuing $161M in promissory notes. ... The units of FMO were repurchased by FMO for nominal consideration. The appellants had full (FMV) cost for their FMO units when acquired in steps 2 and 4, and the capital gains distribution in step 6 did not reduce the ACB of their units by virtue of s. 53(2)(h)(i.1)(A) and (B)(I). ...

It was held that s. 6(3)(e) did not apply because at the time of entering into the second contract the hospital already owed him (and admitted owing him) $30,000, and the $30,000 accordingly should not be regarded as consideration for his covenant. ...

An analysis which excludes consideration of events and evidence arising after the funds had been put to their original use, would severely limit the exceptional circumstances inquiry. ...