Search - consideration

Stock ‘94 Szolgáltató Zrt. v Regional Customs and Finance Directorate-General for Southern Transdanubia of the National Tax and Customs Office, Hungary, [2016] BVC 45, C-208/15 (European Court of Justice (5th Chamber))-- summary under Supply Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Supply interest on loan to fund taxable supply was part of taxable consideration A Hungarian company was set up to assist Hungarian farmers by lending them money to fund the purchase by them from it of current assets needed in their business. The European Court of Justice (subject to some further findings of facts to be made by the local court) essentially applied the single supply doctrine to find that the loan interest was part of the consideration for the sale of products by the company to the farmers, so that the interest was subject to VAT (even though, of course, interest on loans viewed as being for a separate supply was VAT-exempt). ...

Crean v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 BCSC 146-- summary under Subsection 84.1(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 84.1- Subsection 84.1(1) share sale for Newco note generated s. 84.1 dividend before its rectification The executed documents indicated that an individual (Thomas) sold his shares of a corporation (Crean Holdings) to the Newco of his brother (Michael) in consideration for a promissory note of the Newco. ... Supreme Court for a rectification order redoing the written agreement to provide that Thomas sold his shares to Michael directly for a promissory note, and that there was an immediate on-sale by Michael of those shares to his Newco in consideration for it assuming the promissory note. ...

Bowie J stated (at para. 13): [O]nly an insurance company licensed to do so may sell insurance, and only a provincial government may sell motor vehicle licences… He also did not agree that separate consideration needed to be received for the insurance and licences, stating (at para. 14): I know of no reason that would prevent [Libra] from supplying its services as an agent to obtain licences and insurance along with other services for a single consideration. ...

Perram and Jackman JJ found that, since as a matter of contractual interpretation, all of the amounts paid by the Bottler to the Seller were consideration for the sold concentrate, none of such payments could be treated as a trademark royalty that was subject to Australian withholding tax. ... Accordingly, the Commissioner’s assessment of Australian withholding tax on a portion of the consideration was reversed. ...

Step 3: The CLCs then assigned the leases and their title in the cars to an offshore bank Soc Gen Jersey ("SGJ"), in consideration for £20m (financed by SG London, which received a further assignment of the assets as security). ... Respecting the first condition, Lord Sumption noted (at para. 14) that the VAT "broad principle is that tax on the ultimate value of the product is levied only once, albeit that it may be collected at different stages of the process of manufacture and distribution," and (at para. 20) that normally "the reseller seeking to avail himself of the margin scheme will have acquired the goods from someone with no right to recover input tax in respect of their own acquisition of them" so that "the object and effect is to avoid double taxation," whereas "the effect of the KPMG scheme was to enable the Pendragon Group to sell demonstrator cars second-hand under the margin scheme in circumstances where VAT had not only been previously charged but fully recovered…[so that a] system designed to prevent double taxation on the consideration for goods has been exploited so as to prevent any taxation on the consideration at all" (para. 30). ...

The ARQ assessed Des Groseillers on the basis that the donation of the options constituted a disposition of such options described in the Taxation Act. s. 50 (equivalent to ITA s. 7(1)(b)) and that TA s. 422 (equivalent to ITA s. 69(1)(b)) deemed the “value of the consideration for the disposition” received by him to be equal to the options’ fair market value of $3M, thereby resulting in the receipt of employment income in that amount by him pursuant to s. 50. ... He further found, in the alternative, that even if the s. 7(1)(b) equivalent applied, it only applied on the basis of the nil consideration actually received by Des Groseillers rather than being expanded by the s. 69(1)(b)(ii) equivalent to deem the consideration to be $3M. ...

After noting (at para. 35, TaxInterpretations translation) “Where it has been argued that the deed of transfer or assignment in itself constitutes the separation agreement, the case law has been unanimous that it must contain a reference to the separation pursuant to which the transfer was made”, Schrager JCA noted that, here, the December 2010 deed of assignment made no reference to an agreement for the taxpayer to renounce support in consideration for the transfer, and instead stated the consideration for the transfer to be nil – nor did the deed of transfer state that the parties at that time were separated (and instead stated that their marital status was unchanged). Schrager JCA noted (at para. 38) that a “Consent on Ancillary Measures” signed by the parties in 2014 (i) confirmed that they ceased to have a married life together in the fall of 2010 (prior to the deed of assignment) and (ii) further stated: In consideration of the division of movable and immovable property which the parties made in December 2010 and early 2011, the plaintiff waives maintenance for her and all remedies which she could assert against the defendant's estate …. ...

The definition in Art. 12(4) of the Australia-U.S. treaty (the “DTA”) of “royalties” referred inter alia to: payments or credits of any kind to the extent to which they are consideration for the use of or the right to use any: (i) copyright, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, trademark or other like property or right …. Moshinsky J found that Australia was permitted under the DTA to impose withholding tax of 5% on a portion of the purchase price paid by SAPL to PBS on the basis that it constituted consideration for the use, or right to use, the trademarks to which PepsiCo or SVC were beneficially entitled, stating (at paras. 244, 255-256, and 258): [W]hile the payments made by SAPL were, on their face, payments for the purchase of concentrate, this is not determinative of their characterisation for the purposes of Art 12(4) …. … PepsiCo and SVC, as the parties to the EBAs, were entitled to receive the payments made by SAPL under the EBAs. ... In these circumstances, the relevant portions of those payments (being the portions that were consideration for the use of, or the right to use, the relevant items) “came home” to PepsiCo/SVC … by being applied as they directed. ...

The Commissioner assessed on the basis that the consideration paid by GIAG to CMPL for the copper concentrate under a contract (the “February 2007 Agreement”) between them described below was less than the consideration that might reasonably be expected to have been paid in an arm’s length dealing between independent parties. ... Chevron... make[s] it clear that the hypothetical should be based on the form of the actual transaction entered into between the associated enterprises but on the assumption that the parties are independent and dealing at arm’s length, in order to identify a reliable substitute arm’s length consideration for the actual consideration given or received. ...

Zhang incorporated a B.C. company ("Beamtech") and secured approval from a Chinese authority for the transfer of his shares of LABest to Beamtech for cash consideration of U.S.$150,000 – which was effected without further specific advice from Bob. ... Zhang as purported additional consideration for the transfer, a joint s. 85(1) election was filed and a rectification order was sought to have the share issue be considered to have occurred on the date of the transfer. ...