Search - consideration

Article 5.2 of this research agreement provided that in consideration for the research activity conducted by the University of Ottawa, APCR would pay $2,944,482.93 to the University, in 24 equal monthly payments of $122,686.79, from March 1993 to March 1995. ... Issue APCR essentially criticizes the Director for having illegally exercised his discretion by: a) failing to observe APCR’s right to be fairly treated by denying it a meaningful right to be heard; b) erring in law by giving an unduly restrictive interpretation to the discretion conferred on him by subsections 220(2.1) and 220(3) of the Income Tax Act; and C) taking factors not relevant to the exercise of his discretion into consideration and refusing to consider factors relevant to the exercise of his discretion. ... Le Dain J. dealt with this question at some length and said, at p. 513: The Minister may validly and properly indicate the kind of considerations by which he will be guided as a general rule in the exercise of his discretion (see British Oxygen Co. ...

Paragraph 212(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act reads as follows: (1) Every non-resident person shall pay an income tax of 25% (15% for the purpose of these appeals) on every amount that a person resident in Canada pays or credits, or is deemed by Part I to pay or credit, to him as, on account of or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of, (d) Rents, royalties, etc—rent, royalty or a similar payment, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, any payment (i) for the use of or for the right to use in Canada any property, invention, trade name, patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula, process of other thing whatever, (ii) for the information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience where the total amount payable as consideration for such information is dependent in whole or in part upon (A) the use to be made thereof or the benefit to be derived therefrom, (B) production or sales of goods or services, or (C) profits, (iii) for services of an industrial, commercial or sceintific character performed by anon-resident person where the total amount payable as consideration for such services is dependent in whole or in part upon (A) the use to be made thereof or the benefit to be derived therefrom, (B) production or sales of goods or services, or (C) profits, but not including a payment made for services performed in connection with the sale of property or the negotiation of a contract, (iv) made pursuant to an agreement between a person resident in Canada and a non-resident person under which the non-resident person agrees not to use or not to permit any other person to use any thing referred to in subparagraph (i) or any information referred to in subparagraph (il), or (v) that was dependent upon the use of or production from property in Canada whether or not it was an instalment on the sale price of the property, but not including an instalement on the sale price of agricultural land, but not including (vi) a royalty or similar payment on or in respect of a copyright, (vii) a payment in respect of the use by a railway company of a property that is railway rolling stock as defined in the definition “rolling stock” in section 2 of the Railway Act (A) if the payment is made for the use of that property for a period or periods not expected to exceed in the aggregate 90 days in any 12 month period, or (B) in any other case, if the payment is made pursuant to an agreement in writing entered into before November 19, 1974; (viii) a payment made under a bona fide cost-sharing arrangement under which the person making the payment shares on a reasonable basis with one or more non-resident persons research and development expenses in exchange for an interest in any or all property or other things of value that may result therefrom, (ix) a rental payment for the use of or the right to use outside Canada any corporeal property, or (x) any payment made to a person with whom the payer is dealing at arm’s length, to the extent that the amount thereof is deductible in computing the income of the payer under Part I from a business carried on by him in a country other than Canada; The words “rent” or “royalty” are not defined in paragraph 212(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act or elsewhere in the Act. ... Thus the use of the words ‘’income” and “capital” is not necessarily conclusive; what is paid out of profits may not always be income; and what is paid as consideration for a capital asset may on occasion be received as income. ...

The most relevant sections of the Act are: 56. (1) Without restricting the generality of section 3, there shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year, (h) amounts in respect of a registered retirement savings plan required by section 146 to be included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year; Section 146 deals with registered retirement savings plans and retirement savings plans: 146. (1) In this section, (b) “benefit” means any amount paid or payable under a retirement savings plan, otherwise than as a premium; (d) “maturity” means the date fixed under a retirement savings plan for the commencement of any annuity the payment of which is provided for by the plan; (f) “premium” means any periodic or other amount paid or payable under a retirement savings plan, (i) as consideration for any agreement referred to in subparagraph (j)(i) to pay an annuity, or (ii) as a contribution referred to in subparagraph (j)(ii) for the purpose stated in that subparagraph; (5) There may be deducted in computing the income for a taxation year of a taxpayer who is an annuitant under a registered retirement savings plan or becomes, within 60 days after the end of the taxation year, an annuitant thereunder, the amount of any premium paid by the taxpayer under the plan during the taxation year or within 60 days after the end of the taxation year (to the extent that it was not deductible in computing his income for a previous taxation year),... ... The word “premium” is defined by paragraph 146(1)(f) as follows: (f) “premium” means any periodic or other amount paid or payable under a retirement savings plan, (i) as consideration for any agreement referred to in subparagraph (j)(i) to pay an annuity, or (ii) as a contribution referred to in subparagraph (j)(ii) for the purpose Stated in that subparagraph; Such definition would indicate that in arriving at the portion to be treated as income in the case of a retirement savings plan, the premium paid by the taxpayer is to be deducted from the full amount of the annuity paid to him in that year. ... This approach does not, however, take into consideration the section of the Income Tax Act above referred to. ...

While the argument of counsel for the appellant to the effect that there was a binding oral agreement between Petritz Enterprises and Depco as from September or October 1964 has some support, the reality of the situation, on my appreciation of the evidence, is that the parties intended to follow the advice given by Lesonsky but had placed the matter in the hands of the solicitor for preparation of an appropriate agreement in writing which would be submitted to the parties for their consideration for acceptance or otherwise, and that not until it was accepted and executed was it binding on the companies and effective. ... There remains for consideration whether after the execution of the agreement between Petritz Enterprises and Depco the services that the appellant was giving to Depco were being given not as an employee of Depco but for and on behalf of Petritz Enterprises under the said agreement. ... In my consideration of the case, including the evidence from the appeals heard by Mr Justice Gibson and the evidence given before me by Lesonsky, I have at times regarded the arrangements for management services by Petritz Enterprises to Depco as suspect, but overall I have come to the conclusion that the main reason for the incorporation of Petritz Enterprises was, on the advice of Lesonsky, to have a management company to provide the appellant’s services to Depco and to other companies and ventures as opportunities might present themselves, that the company was not a mere cloak for the appellant or a sham, that it could legitimately carry on the objects for which it was incorporated, that the agreement for the company to provide management services to Depco was bona fide and not a sham, that such services were provided pursuant to the agreement, and that the $24,000 added by the respondent to the appellant’s income for 1967 was income of Petritz Enterprises and not income of the appellant. ...

With these considerations in mind, Fowler approached his associates in Lindev. ... In my opinion, any prudent businessman, whether carrying on his affairs in his personal capacity or through a company, must have at least vaguely in his mind, and therefore, in the corporate mind, the possibility of selling an asset (originally acquired for purposes of long-term investment and the earnings of income) if economic considerations demand it. I exclude from economic considerations, a simple desire and opportunity to make a profit. ...

On the same day, Richelieu purchased, in consideration of $1, the $340,746 in notes receivable issued by Savoy in favour of the late Preston Savoy, the owner of that company. ... It was refinanced for about $700,000 and the six shareholders guaranteed this financing in the total amount of about $130,000. 6 Despite some substantial efforts, Savoy was not profitable and, from the summer of 1980 on, consideration was already being given to reselling the firm or simply shutting it down. 7 On November 3, 1980, Richelieu sold all of Savoy's shares to Data Business Forms Ltd. (“Data”) in consideration of $185,000. Schedule 12 of the sales contract stipulated that Savoy would reimburse Richelieu for the notes through a payment of $340,746 by a cheque issued directly in the names of the individual shareholders of Richelieu, in the amount of $41,179 each and to the two Felray shareholders in the amount of $88,015 each. ...

You must take into consideration the deduction limit and the amount of unused contributions before contributing to your RRSP account. ... The reasons provided by the Minister are clear and demonstrate a rational chain of analysis and a full consideration of the facts and information provided to them in respect of the First and Second Level Requests to waive the Part X.1 tax. ... The Respondent did not provide submissions with respect to the quantum of costs nor did they provide the Court with a specific amount. [30] In consideration of the circumstances of this application, and after considering the Rules Tariff B, I am satisfied that an award of $1,000.00 is reasonable.   ...

[15] As is implicit in the articulation of the second issue above, the standard of review for the Court’s consideration of the merits of the Decision is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at paras 16–17). ... The Respondent submits that the Disputed Evidence was not before the Officer and therefore presumptively cannot be considered on judicial review. [17] It is trite law that, in reviewing the reasonableness of an administrative decision, the Court is typically required to restrict its review to consideration of evidence that was before the administrative decision-maker. ... This hardship surrounds the death of the Applicant’s husband, her mental health challenges, and financial challenges that have been exacerbated by the CRA’s demand for repayment of the CERB payments to which the CRA has concluded the Applicant was not entitled. [19] However, as the Respondent correctly submits, Parliament did not include in the CERBA any provisions that afford the CRA the authority to grant relief to a taxpayer based on compassionate considerations. ...

This subsection of the ITA is of exceptional and discretionary application (Les Gestions Bussey Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 17 at para 23; Loyer (Succession) v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1528 at para 24). [20] As recently summarized by the Federal Court of Appeal, in reviewing taxpayer relief decisions, the Federal Court must “start with the reasons of the Minister’s delegate, read them with due consideration in light of the evidentiary record before the Minister’s delegate, take into account that the Minister’s delegate has a very wide, unconstrained discretion under subsection 220(3.1) of the Act to determine what is fair (itself a rather subjective and impressionistic concept that cannot be concretely defined), and, finally, assess whether the decision of the Minister’s delegate fell outside the rather loose constraints in this case” (Canada (Attorney General) v Maloney, 2025 FCA 165 at para 6 [Maloney]). [21] It is also not the role of the Court, on judicial review of the Decision, to decide whether a tax penalty ought to have been imposed, or how interest should have been calculated (Neyedly v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 678 at para 75, citing Chekosky v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2019 FC 841 at para 39). [22] I am mindful that the Applicant is self-represented and that he is frustrated by the duration of the interest payments and amounts he has paid to date. ... The reviewing officer also prepared a report setting out their analysis of the Relief Request in consideration of the factors in the ITA on tax relief applications. [26] The Applicant argued that he advised the CRA that he accepted an offer to settle on August 15, 1996 [Acceptance Letter]. ... Other than the challenge to the Acceptance Letter in the officer’s report, the Applicant did not identify any other factual errors related to the Decision. [28] The officer also took into consideration the Applicant’s arguments in his Relief Request and the evidence he presented. ...

So excluding personal information does not preclude a comparison of test scores as part of a consideration of arbitrariness. ... But its application must take into consideration the special circumstances of the tribunal. ... In the case at bar, the test must take into consideration the broad functions entrusted by law to the Board.... 83.    ...