Search - consideration

However, it was precluded by statute from going back more than three years with its refund claims – but there was no such time limitation where a repayment of VAT was claimed based on there being “a decrease in consideration for a supply.” Before rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that its change in calculating the consideration for its supplies involved a “decrease in consideration,” so that it could go back more than three years, Lord Legatt stated (at para. 30) that it was “clear that there can be only one correct method of calculating the taxable element of fees charged to customers for playing cash bingo and … this was the session by session method and not the game by game method.” Since there was only one correct method, on this basis as well the taxpayer’s claim that its switch in method entailed a decrease in the consideration payable by it foundered. ...

The King, 2024 TCC 93-- summary under Paragraph 160(1)(e) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 160- Subsection 160(1)- Paragraph 160(1)(e) a distribution by a discretionary trust in satisfaction of a capital interest occurred for no consideration for s. 160 purposes The taxpayer was one of nine beneficiaries of a discretionary inter vivos personal trust which ceased to be resident in Canada in 2001. ... After finding that the trust had realized departure tax pursuant to s. 128.1(4)(b) in 2001 and had a tax debt that had amounted to $1.6 million at the end of 2005, Gagnon J confirmed the Crown’s position that the taxpayer had not given consideration to the trust for either distribution (e.g., in exchange for part satisfaction of his capital interest in the trust). In this regard, Gagnon J first noted (at para. 62, TaxInterpretations translation): [I]f one party is enriched and the other impoverished by the same amount, it will be possible to conclude that the party who became richer did not offer equivalent consideration …. ...

.)-- summary under Section 178 Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 178 In finding that charges of a firm of solicitors for reimbursement of their railway and air fares constituted, on general principles, part of the consideration for the services provided by them to their clients, Bridge J. stated (p. 448): "On the one hand a solicitor (like any other agent) may purchase goods or services for its client, as for instance when paying stamp duty, court fees, or buying, say, a travel ticket to enable the client to travel. ... Naturally no value added tax is payable (if the goods or services in question are themselves exempt or zero-rated) because such payments form no part of the consideration for the solicitor's own services to its client. But on the other hand quite different considerations apply where the goods or services purchased are supplied to the solicitor, as here in the form of travel tickets, to enable him effectively to perform the service supplied to his client... ...

MNR (1941), 2 DTC 513 (Ex Ct), rev'd [1942] S.C.R. 269, 2 DTC 561-- summary under Subsection 84(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 84- Subsection 84(2) The Premier Trust Company ("Premier") acquired all the shares of the taxpayer and other shareholders of the Security Loan and Savings Company ("Security") in consideration for (at the option of the shareholder) 1.5 shares of Premier for each Security share, or a combination of cash of $102 and 0.5 shares of Premier for each Security share. ... A portion of the consideration so received by the taxpayer would have been includable in her income (under s. 19(1)) to the extent of her share of the "undistributed income" (i.e., accumulated retained earnings)- but for the fact that the Act was interpreted as excluding from undistributed income the income which Premier had earned prior to 1935 (the point on which the case was reversed in the Supreme Court of Canada). McLean J. noted that on the facts there clearly was a discontinuance ("whether that was bought about by a sale to or amalgamation with the Premier Company") or a winding-up of the business (notwithstanding the absence of a formal liquidation procedure), and that the transactions resulted in a distribution of Security property notwithstanding "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 (p. 516). ...

Harman J. found (p. 361) that): "The special commissioner was entirely entitled to reach the conclusion that there is no basis on which a separate and additional monetary value could be placed upon the guarantee as part of the consideration to be added to the undoubted monetary price paid which was the true open market price of the shares." and went on to find that the guarantee clearly fell within s. 22(4)(b) of the Finance Act 1965 which deemed the disposal of an asset to be for consideration equal to the market value of the asset where the asset was acquired "wholly or partly for a consideration that cannot be valued". ...

Lubbock Fine & Co. v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, [1993] EUECJ C-63/92, [1994] 3 All ER 705-- summary under Subsection 221(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 221- Subsection 221(2) tenant's surrender of leasehold qualified as a letting of immovable property A U.K. firm of chartered accountants received a lump sum from its landlord in consideration for surrendering the residue of a lease to the landlord. In finding that the surrender came within a VAT exemption for the “letting of immovable property,” the Court stated (at paras. 8-10): The essence of the first question put by the national court is whether the term "letting of immovable property" used in Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive to define an exempt transaction covers the case where a tenant, for consideration, surrenders his lease and returns the immovable property to his immediate landlord. Where a given transaction, such as the letting of immovable property, which would be taxed on the basis of the rents paid, falls within the scope of an exemption provided for by the Sixth Directive, a change in the contractual relationship, such as termination of the lease for consideration, must also be regarded as falling within the scope of that exemption. ...

., Ltd. (1932), 17 TC 286 (KBD)-- summary under Subsection 10(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 10- Subsection 10(1) allocation of part of purchase price to oil in the ground not respected The taxpayer purchased the oil wells, plant and equipment of its subsidiary in consideration for issuing shares having a value of £120,000. The agreement allocated £70,000 of the consideration to the oil in the wells which were purchased. ...

The Queen, [1995] GSTC 34 (TCC)-- summary under Subsection 153(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 153- Subsection 153(2) Lamarre TCJ. concluded that s. 153(2) did not have the effect of deeming a separate service fee charged by a co-operative retail outlet to its members to be consideration paid by them for zero-rated groceries. Instead, the provision "was designed as an anti-avoidance rule that applies where there has been an unreasonable apportionment of consideration as between two or more supplies" (p. 34-6). ...

In 1965 the taxpayer acquired the property from the company in consideration for the assumption of $311,000 of mortgages, and was issued a promissory note of the company for $53,000, so that his net cost was $259,000, i.e., $85,000 less than the company's cost. ... In rejecting an argument that the promissory note did not give rise to a benefit in the year of issuance, Jackett CJ stated (at p. 5361): [W]hen a debt is created from a company to a shareholder for no consideration, or inadequate consideration, a benefit is conferred....On the other hand, when a debt is paid, assuming it was well secured, no benefit is conferred because the creditor has merely received that to which he is entitled. ...

., professional fees and web design), and after having noted at (para. 52) that credits would have been available if there instead were only an undertaking for the future making of taxable supplies, Warren J stated (at para. 124): Noreseman needs to establish that, when it incurred input tax in the relevant period, it had either already made supplies for a consideration (the first question) or that it had the intention of making at some time in the future supplies for a consideration (the second question). ... He added (at para. 126) that “if the intention had been to charge a nominal amount of, say £100 per annum, that would be unlikely to satisfy the EU law necessary to establish consideration.” ...