Search - consideration

The taxpayer has the onus of proving that the Minister’s assumptions are not true or that they were not made.... [115] [Emphasis and double emphasis added.] [105]   If the taxpayer proves on a balance of probabilities that the assumptions of fact stated in the reply were not made, or that these assumptions of fact were made after the assessment was issued or confirmed, the impugned facts are removed from the Court’s consideration at the end of the hearing unless—as with missing assumptions of fact—there is evidence on the record addressing those facts. [116] If such evidence is not on the record at the end of the taxpayer’s case, [117] as a practical matter, the Minister would need to lead the evidence as part of the Minister’s case (i.e., the Minister would have a tactical burden). [106]   In addition to assumptions of fact, the Minister must plead any other material facts relevant to the assessment. [118] However, if the Minister wishes to rely on material facts stated in the reply, in argument the Minister must be able to point to evidence on the record in support of those facts. ... Morrison was allowed a charitable donation tax credit for a cash gift of $15,075. (2) The In-Kind Donations [134]   The Respondent submits that neither of the Appellants made a common law gift to CKF or MCF in 2004 and 2005, that even if there was a gift, the amount of the advantage in respect of the gift reduced the eligible amount of the gift to nil, and that in any event the value attributed to the pharmaceuticals identified in the tax receipts issued to the Appellants was very significantly above the fair market value of the pharmaceuticals in the market in which they were acquired and used. [135]   Under common law, for there to be a gift there must be (1) an intention to make a gift on the part of the donor, without consideration or expectation of remuneration, (2) an acceptance of the gift by the donee, and (3) a sufficient act of delivery or transfer of the property to complete the transaction. [132] I will address the third requirement first. [136]   The evidence establishes that the Appellants applied to WHI to be appointed Class A beneficiaries of CHT and received from CHT certificates purportedly representing ownership in specific pharmaceuticals. [133] These certificates were then transferred by the Appellants to CKF or MCF. ... Friedberg, 92 D.T.C. 6031 (F.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal recognized that to vitiate a gift, a benefit or consideration must actually flow to the donor:... a gift is a voluntary transfer of property owned by a donor to a donee, in return for which no benefit or consideration flows to the donor (at 6032). [141] [Emphasis added.] [160]   The receipt of an inflated tax receipt for the in-kind donation to MCF in 2004 is not a benefit to Mr.  ...

Other consideration   On July 12, 2002, the insurability department determined that the jobs held by François Houle, Mario Houle and Pascal Houle when they were working for Agrimétal Inc. were insurable under paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Employment   Insurance Act. ...

., p. 312: ‘ The decisions of an ordinary superio r court are binding on all courts of inferior rank within the same jurisdiction, and, though not absolutely binding on courts of co-ordinat e authority nor on that court itself, will be followed in the absence of strong reason to the contrary’.“ I think that “strong reason to the contrary” does not mean a strong argumentative reason appealing to the particular Judge, but something that may indicate that the prior decision was given without consideration of a statute or some authority that ought to have been followed. ...

(dn)       Davis Tiburzi and Robert Gelder agreed in consideration of Ontario Ltd. advancing the above mentioned funds to hold 15,000 common shares of CBPL represented by a certificate i.e. certificate no. 7 for and on behalf of Ontario Ltd. [18]     The Appellant submits that paragraphs 19(dm) and (dn) are entirely consistent with its position that Tiburzi and Gelder held 50% of the shares as trustees for the beneficial owner, 425 Ontario. [19]     Counsel for the Respondent argues that, notwithstanding the reference to the Trust Agreement in paragraph 19(dm), the words "for and on behalf of" in subparagraph 19(dn) are indicative, not of their trusteeship, but rather of Tiburzi and Gelder's having held the shares as "security" for the funds 425 Ontario advanced to permit them to complete the share purchase. ...

The overriding consideration is that the interests of justice be served. ...

Travel and other allowances — For the purposes of this Part, where   (a) a person pays a reasonable allowance to an employee or, where the person is a partnership, to a member of the partnership   (i) for supplies all or substantially all of which are taxable supplies (other than zero-rated supplies) acquired in Canada by the employee or member in relation to an activity engaged in by the person, or   (ii) for the use in Canada, in relation to an activity engaged in by the person, of a motor vehicle, and   (b) an amount in respect of the allowance is deductible in computing the income of the person for a taxation year of the person for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, or would have been so deductible if the person were a taxpayer under that Act and the activity were a business,   the person shall be deemed to have received a taxable supply and to have paid, at the time the allowance is paid, tax in respect of the supply equal to the tax fraction of the amount of the allowance.   253.(1) Employees and partners — Where tax is payable in respect of   (a) the acquisition or importation of an automobile, an aircraft or a musical instrument, or   (b) the supply of any other property or a service,   by an individual who is a member of a partnership that is a registrant or who is an employee of a registrant (other than a listed financial institution), and the individual is not entitled to claim an input tax credit in respect of the tax, subject to subsections (2) and (3), the Minister shall pay a rebate for each calendar year to the individual equal to the amount determined by the formula   A x (B- C)   where   A is the tax fraction on the last day of the year,   B is the total of all amounts each of which is   (a) the capital cost allowance in respect of the automobile, aircraft or musical instrument, or   (b) the consideration or part thereof for the supply of the other property or service, that was deducted under the Income Tax Act in computing the individual's income for the year from employment or from the partnership, as the case may be, and   C is the total of all amounts each of which is an amount   (a) included in the total determined for B, and   (b) in respect of which the individual received an allowance or reimbursement from any other person.   ...

Knechtel testified that this regulation had been adopted after regular branch accounting principles had been considered and rejected for purposes of assessing tax applicable to multi-national life insurers, and though preliminary consideration had been given to extending the proposed regulation to the activities of fraternal societies in Canada, that had not been done when the regulation was adopted. ... I do not however rely on inferences as this second stage of the analysis requires a consideration of all relevant facts, to determine whether, despite the separation, World Surplus assets were used or held by the Appellant in carrying on an insurance business. [184] The parties took very different positions on the use of World Surplus assets. [146] Based on the evidence, I conclude that during the Relevant Period, the Appellant used World Surplus assets: to cover the annual costs associated with the Appellant’s fraternal operations, being Fraternal Benefits, community Good Works and the administrative costs of its fraternal operations; [147] to invest in various business opportunities both insurance and non-insurance; [148] to top up divisional capital (of an insurance division or the fraternal division) if the division’s capital allocation fell below the Divisional Target; [149] and to pay for the cost of Elixir. [150] [185] Next, I consider whether the deployment of World Surplus assets described above and other arguments regarding use made by the Respondent constitutes use or holding by the Appellant in carrying on an insurance business. 4. ...

Both methods, however, were acceptable under generally accepted accounting principles (“ GAAP ”). [176] The relevant question that arose for consideration by Associate Chief Justice Jerome of the Federal Court – Trial Division (the “F.C.T.D.”) was:... may the taxpayer compute his loss on the closing out of the short position without regard for the gain accruing on the as yet unrealized long position? ... Where an activity is clearly commercial, the taxpayer is necessarily engaged in the pursuit of profit, and therefore a source of income exists.... 22 Although the respondents in this case were clearly motivated by tax considerations when they purchased their interests in the Partnership, this does not detract from the commercial nature of the storage park operation or its characterization as a source of income for the purposes of s. 9 of the Act. ...

In fact, according to the appellant, this is what she meant when she stated that the consideration indicated in the deed of sale included [TRANSLATION] "and other valuable consideration." ...   [30]         The next question is what consideration the appellant gave her husband as consideration for the transferred property. ... Not only must there be evidence of consideration but the consideration must be sufficient ...

Canada 2001 CanLII 825 (TCC) [the Appellant unsuccessfully argued the consideration was services rendered]; Cote v. ... The Queen 2008 TCC 539 [the Appellant unsuccessfully argued the consideration was services rendered]; Duchaine v. The Queen 2015 TCC 245 [the Appellant unsuccessfully argued the consideration was services rendered]; and Kufsky v. ...