Search - consideration

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 ...

The overriding consideration is that the interests of justice be served. . . . [7] [Emphasis added. ... Canada, 2007 FCA 86, where it is clear that the Hennelly considerations are applicable to section 12 of the Rules. ... It is interesting to read the criteria that the Court lists (at paragraphs 48 and 49) for consideration: (1) Was the motion brought promptly? ...

It is immaterial, in my opinion, that the consideration received by the appellant for her shares happened to reach her directly from the Premier Company and not through the medium of the Security Company ... The basic rule under new subsection 84.1(1) is that the maximum amount that can be received by the transferor from the transferee corporation as proceeds in the form of any non-share consideration and the paid-up capital of the share consideration is restricted to the greater of the paid-up capital of the transferred shares and what could be called the actual non-arm's length adjusted cost base to the transferor of the shares.   New paragraph 84.1(1)(a) provides for a paid-up capital reduction for each class of shares of the purchaser corporation for which shares were issued as consideration for its acquisition of shares of another corporation. ...

A supplier is defined in section 123 as "the person making the supply", and a recipient is defined as: (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, (b)         where paragraph (a) does not apply and consideration is payable for the supply, the person who is liable to pay that consideration, and (c)         where no consideration is payable for the supply,             [...] ... Liability to pay for the supply will govern where there is consideration payable. ... Section 165 of the Act imposes GST on the value of the consideration for this supply and is the amount exempted under paragraph (h). ...

The latter acquired the appellant’s shares for total consideration of $500,000. ... (“AuteurCo”) was incorporated and Public subscribed for 400 Class A shares for a total consideration of $400. c) On June 20, 2005, 9157‑4426 Québec Inc. (“Beneficiary1”) was incorporated and, on July 4, 2005, AuteurCo subscribed for 100 Class A shares of Beneficiary1 for a total consideration of $100.   ...