Search - consideration

BETWEEN: NORMAN GAUDREAU Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 16, 2005) NOËL J.A. [1]                The principal argument raised in support of this appeal is that the Tax Court Judge considered the appellant's intention to return to Canada after the expiration of his four-year contract in Egypt as the overriding consideration in the determination that he was resident in Canada during this four-year period. [2]                We do not read the reasons of the Tax Court Judge as the appellant does. ... However, nothing turns on this as the Tax Court Judge acknowledged that the appellant was a dual resident and proceeded to render judgment on that basis. [5]                The appellant's second argument is that the Judge incorrectly applied the first tie-breaker rule (centre of vital interests) in the Canada-Egypt Income Tax Convention Act, 1984, being Part IV of S.C. 1984, c. 35. [6]                The appellant submits that the Judge took into account economic considerations, but failed to take into account personal considerations. ...

The notarial contract further states that [translation] “[t]his sale was therefore concluded for the amount of one dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration that the purchaser has paid in cash to the seller and that the latter acknowledges having received from the purchaser, to whom he grants a FINAL AND GENERAL DISCHARGE” ...   [7]                The subsequent dissolution of the partnership of acquests on April 20, 1989 does not establish that an additional consideration was paid for the sale by one spouse to the other of their principal residence. ... Each spouse’s waiver of his or her rights to the property passing to the other spouse as a result of the partition flows from the very logic of the dissolution of the partnership of acquests and the waivers do not in themselves establish that an additional consideration was paid for the family home ...

As a result by an agreement dated April 2, 1964 the plaintiff and his brother Winston A Steeves purchased all of the shareholdings of the Newfoundland group in consideration of the Steeves brothers assuming all company debts, including personal guarantees, to the exoneration of the Newfoundland group plus the sum of $1 for each of their respective shares of the company. ... These aggregated $620,633.13 and the agreed consideration for the assignment was $70,000. ... In other words, for a nominal consideration. The assignments, on the other hand, while dated the same day as the main agreement, were made by J Goodyear & Sons Limited and Goodyear Construction Limited as assignors and the Steeves brothers as assignees and were each for a substantial consideration, aggregating $70,000 for debts having a face value of $620,633.13. ...

It concerns a situation in which a person with an outstanding tax liability transfers property to another person without receiving adequate consideration. ... Wall did not testify. [5] The trial judge was not persuaded by either of these submissions. [6] With respect to the consideration paid, Ms. Pillon testified in the Tax Court that she had given full consideration because the transfers were simply repayments of loans that she had made to Mr. ...

Statutory framework [14]            Pursuant to subsection 165(1) of the Excise Tax Act, a person who pays consideration for a taxable supply made in the course of a business activity is required to pay GST equal to the statutory rate multiplied by the value of the consideration. ... That requires consideration of sections 138 and 139 of the Excise Tax Act ... Since the three elements are integrally connected and there is a single consideration, there is a single supply ...

The learned judge, after due consideration of the evidence, accepted the respondent’s testimony to this effect and we can see no “palpable or overriding” error of fact that would entitle us to intervene. ... This would of course be a proper matter for consideration in any determination as to whether the rule should be waived. ...

London Life acquired the construction inputs for the purpose of providing taxable supplies, i.e. leasehold improvements to its landlords for consideration, i.e. the tenant improvement allowances. ... But when the leasing transactions are considered independently, London Life is supplying the leasehold improvements to the landlords for the consideration of the leasehold improvement allowances. ... GST is payable on the tenant improvement allowances received by London Life as consideration for improving the leased premises. ...

Paraphrasing paragraph 6(3)(b) and paragraph 6(3)(c), where an amount is received by a person in satisfaction of an obligation arising out of an agreement made by that person and the payor immediately prior to, during or immediately after a period when the person was employed by the payor, that payment is deemed to be remuneration during the period of employment subject to this exception: if it is established that the amount received cannot reasonably be regarded as consideration or partial consideration for entering the contract of employment, it will not be deemed to be remuneration. ... It has not been established that this payment "cannot reasonably be regarded as having been received as consideration or a partial consideration for...entering into the contract of employment”. On the contrary, it is clear that the payment arising from the satisfaction of the obligation that arose under this agreement was received as ’’consideration or partial consideration” for entering into the contract of employment. ...

This provision does not govern when the appellant was required to remit the GST/HST it collected, but rather, governs when GST/HST was payable by the appellant’s customers. [15] Generally speaking, the appellant’s customers, as recipients of a taxable supply made in Canada, are required under section 165 of the ETA to pay GST/HST on the value of the consideration for the supply. ... The appellant would also generally be required to remit the amounts collectible and collected from its customers less any input tax credits to the Receiver General of Canada within the applicable timeframe from the end of each of its reporting periods (ETA, s. 225, 228(1), 228(2), 238(1)). [16] Subsection 168(1) of the ETA provides that GST/HST “in respect of a taxable supply is payable by the recipient on the earlier of the day the consideration for the supply is paid and the day the consideration for the supply becomes due”. To determine when the consideration for a taxable supply becomes due, subsection 152(1) of the ETA provides: 152 (1) For the purposes of this Part, the consideration, or a part thereof, for a taxable supply shall be deemed to become due on the earliest of 152 (1) Pour l’application de la présente partie, tout ou partie de la contrepartie d’une fourniture taxable est réputée devenir due le premier en date des jours suivants: (a) the earlier of the day the supplier first issues an invoice in respect of the supply for that consideration or part and the date of that invoice, a) le premier en date du jour où le fournisseur délivre, pour la première fois, une facture pour tout ou partie de la contrepartie et du jour apparaissant sur la facture; (b) the day the supplier would have, but for an undue delay, issued an invoice in respect of the supply for that consideration or part, and b) le jour où le fournisseur aurait délivré une facture pour tout ou partie de la contrepartie, n’eût été un retard injustifié; (c) the day the recipient is required to pay that consideration or part to the supplier pursuant to an agreement in writing. c) le jour où l’acquéreur est tenu de payer tout ou partie de la contrepartie au fournisseur conformément à une convention écrite. [17] In this case, the appellant’s reliance on subsection 168(1) of the ETA is misguided and fails to consider the interplay between subsections 152(1) and 168(1) of the ETA as well as the phrase in the opening portion of subsection 152(1) of the ETA “shall be deemed to become due on the earliest of” and the phrase in subsection 168(1) “on the earlier of the day”. [18] It was open to the Minister to conclude that the appellant’s decision to divert the payroll deductions to fund other obligations of the business, including shareholders’ salaries, did not merit the relief sought. ...

Consequently, the transfer of the undivided half interest in the building was made in consideration of the partial extinguishment of this obligation, and section 325 of the Act does not apply. ... She submits that the gift received in 2008 was therefore given in consideration of the discharge of a part of this marriage contract obligation. ... The judge noted in her reasons that the wife had not forfeited the dower in consideration of the gift. ...