Search - consideration

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION] ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER Jorré D.J. [1] The respondent filed an application for an order of the Court granting the respondent leave to file her reply to the notice of appeal despite the expiration of the period for doing so. [2] The respondent requested that the application be disposed of upon consideration of written submissions, and the appellants also filed written submissions. [3] The appellants object to the application. [4] The essential facts are as follows: The deadline for filing the reply was April 16, 2021; Counsel for the respondent completed the reply on April 8, 2021; The reply to the notice of appeal was served on the appellants on April 12, 2021; Counsel for the appellant gave instructions for the reply to be filed with the court registry by April 16, 2021, but despite those instructions, a misunderstanding resulted in the notice of appeal not being filed until April 21, 2021; A letter was sent to the appellants on April 23, 2021, requesting their consent to the late filing of the notice of appeal; The appellants did not consent to the late filing; and On April 27, 2021, the respondent filed a notice of application for an extension of time to file the reply. [5] This Court may allow the filing of a reply before or after the normal period for filing a reply to the notice of appeal: see section 18.16 of the Tax Court of Canada Act. [6] The appellants object on three grounds. ... The overriding consideration is that the interests of justice be served.... ... Janine Anderson, Jurilinguist CITATION: 2021 TCC 55 COURT FILE NO.: 2021-255(GST)I STYLE OF CAUSE: CHRISTIANE JOBIN AND ROGER COUTURE AND THE QUEEN HEARING: In writing WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Filed on April 27 [2] and May 17, 2021 FILE RECEIVED BY DUTY JUDGE: On or shortly after August 16, 2021 REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Deputy Judge Gaston Jorré   DATE OF ORDER: August 25, 2021 APPEARANCES: For the appellants: The appellants themselves Counsel for the respondent: Roger Breton COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the appellants: Name: N/A For the respondent: François Daigle Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada   [1] These considerations must be applied with due regard to who is applying for an extension of time and the context. ...

Did the appellants provide consideration for the payment of the dividends? ... The shareholder gives consideration for the shares and not for what the shares may bring. ... A shareholder receives a dividend solely because the right to a dividend is an attribute of owning shares. [49]     Even assuming it is possible to provide consideration for the payment of a dividend, there is no evidence of such consideration in the instant case. ...

Furthermore, the uncollected and claimed GST was calculated by assuming consideration that included $20.60 per carton sold as tax under the Tobacco Tax Act (Quebec) ...   [32]          Sections 152 to 165 of the ETA complement the short definition of the term “consideration” set out in subsection 123(1) of the ETA, which reads as follows:   “consideration” includes any amount that is payable for a supply by operation of law ...   [33]          Section 154 of the ETA is relevant in determining whether the federal and provincial duties on tobacco products are within the term “consideration.” ...

(ii) Did the fair market value of the property exceed the fair market value of the consideration given by the transferee? ... Did the fair market value of the property exceed the fair market value of the consideration given by the transferee?   ... Watts did not provide consideration [76] The Minister has assumed the following: No consideration was provided by the Appellant to CBLW in exchange for the funds. [77] The FCA in Livingston spoke about the issue of when consideration is provided by the transferee: Under subsection 160(1), a transferee of property will be liable to the CRA to the extent that the fair market value of the consideration given for the property falls short of the fair market value of that property. ...

However, it is not as clear that a dividend constitutes property transferred for no consideration from the transferee. ... Moreover, the value of the consideration should, unless there are exceptional circumstances, be equal to the amount of the dividend. [50] On the other hand, there are decisions that have found dividends to be transfers of property for no consideration. ... The shareholder gives consideration for the shares and not for what the shares may bring. ...

(4)               What was the FMV of the consideration provided by Ms.  ...           ·         The FMV of the consideration given by Ms. Gagnon   [41]          The Minister assumed that the FMV of the consideration paid by Ms.  ... Desrosiers should be added to the FMV of the consideration paid by Ms.  ...

Clause (a) of that definition (the only clause that potentially could apply) provides: recipient of a supply or property or a service means (a) where consideration for the supply is payable under an agreement for the supply, the person who is liable under the agreement to pay that consideration. ... That of course does not establish that BAHA was legally bound to pay the contracted amount per the 2010 p/s agreement, which is what the above-cited definition of “recipient” would require. [10]   At page 2 of the 11 page CIBC “Mortgage approval” statement (Ex.A-11, p.23), the two identified purchasers (Charnkamal Hansra and Belvir Bassi) who are the signatories of the 2010 p/s agreement do turn up at least one more time – as two of three guarantors of the CIBC mortgage granted to BAHA. [11]   As stated, the Respondent’s position was that BAHA was not entitled to the rebate as it did not fit the ETA definition of “recipient” insofar as there was no basis for considering that BAHA was liable for the consideration specified in the 2010 p/s agreement for supply of the subject unit 5 level 20 condominium property. [12]   I am obliged to concur with the Respondent. ... For starters and in any event the amount of the consideration specified in the 2010 p/s agreement ($342,000) is quite different than the principal amount of the CIBC mortgage ($274,320). [14]   I parenthetically add that likely any assignment of purchaser interests would have required the vendor’s consent – noting again that the Court was not provided a copy of any of the schedules to the 2010 p/s agreement. ...

Nonis shows that the amount cannot “reasonably be regarded” as broadly based consideration in respect of employment paid at any time, Mr. ... Subparagraph 115(2)(c.1)(i) is intended to cover amounts received as consideration or partial consideration for entering into a (or forbearing another’s) contract of service, or for entering into an agreement to perform a service where any such service or part is to be performed in Canada. While (i) covers consideration for “entering” into a contract or agreement, (ii) prevents non-capture where a signing bonus is represented as something else. ...

The 15-page document sets out in detail the parties' rights and obligations between the mandator, the Commission de l'exposition provinciale de Québec, and the mandatary, Gestion Carol Lagacé- Pavillon de la Jeunesse (Exhibit A-1). [7]      This agreement sets out the mandator-mandatary relationship of the parties in detail, including the remuneration of the mandatary, the appellant, as follows:           [TRANSLATION] SECTION V- CONSIDERATION 1.          In consideration of the performance of this mandate, the COMMISSION shall pay the following remuneration to the MANDATARY: (A)        A basic amount established over a period of twelve (12) months and set at $6,000.00 for 1997, payable in four equal instalments, on March 1, June 1, September 1 and December 1, 1997, this total basic amount to be established in proportion to the number of months covered by this agreement in 1997. ...

Madsen to the Appellant stated that the consideration that the Appellant paid was $1.00 ...   [22]     Subsection 160(1) of the Act reads as follows:   160. (1) Where a person has, on or after May 1, 1951, transferred property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, to   (a)        the person's spouse or a person who has since become the person's spouse,   (b)        a person who was under 18 years of age, or   (c)        a person with whom the person was not dealing at arm's length,   the following rules apply:   (d)        the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay a part of the transferor's tax under this Part for each taxation year equal to the amount by which the tax for the year is greater than it would have been if it were not for the operation of sections 74.1 to 75.1 of this Act and section 74 of the Income Tax Act, chapter 148 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, in respect of any income from, or gain from the disposition of, the property so transferred or property substituted therefor, and   (e)        the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay under this Act an amount equal to the lesser of   (i)         the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at the time it was transferred exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given for the property, and   (ii)        the total of all amounts each of which is an amount that the transferor is liable to pay under this Act in or in respect of the taxation year in which the property was transferred or any preceding taxation year ... In my opinion the "vague promise" that the Appellant would pay her husband fair market value cannot be accepted as consideration sufficient to prevent the application of section 160 ...