Search - consideration

(The italic is from the Board) Section 678 reads as follows: Where an amount can reasonably be regarded as being in part the consideration for the disposition of any property of a taxpayer and as being in part consideration for something else, the part of the amount that can reasonably be regarded as being the consideration for such disposition shall be deemed to be proceeds of disposition of that property irrespective of the form or legal effect of the contract or agreement; and the person to whom the property was disposed of shall be deemed to have acquired the property at the same part of that amount. ...

(g) The appellant received consideration for his $200 payment to the Lambton Evangelical Christian School Society in the form of the secular academic training received by his child when attending the school. The respondent disallowed this $200 on the assumption that the appellant received consideration for his $200 payment to the Lambton Evangelical Christian School Society. ... Even accepting the evidence of the defendants in these cases that subject payments were voluntary and not pursuant to a contractual obligation, it seems clear that each parent here received a consideration, ie the Christian education of his children. ...

The appellant and Ann Pruden availed themselves of the election opportunity offered by subsections 85D(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, and completed Form T2022, filed as Exhibit R-7, setting out the total accounts receivable and the consideration of $1 paid by the purchaser. ... The appellant was represented by W Green, CA, who submitted that assuming the liabilities of the business the appellant ought to be able to deduct same from the accounts receivable as assumption of liability is also part of the consideration. ... It is obvious that the portion dealing with accounts receivable and the consideration therefor was of some benefit to Ann Pruden. ...

The hearing was held in camera at Toronto, Ontario on February 25, 1975 pursuant to an order of this Board dated October 24, 1974 that the matter be dealt with at the next available sittings in the appropriate district. 2 The question in respect of which the Minister requests a determination by this Board is whether the whole or any part, and, if any, then what part, of the amounts of $75 per week paid by Ferro Structural Steel (Toronto) Limited to William Spira were paid (a) as a consideration for the sale of shares by Spira to Randell and Salamon, or (b) were paid for services rendered by Spira to Ferro. 3 The three individual taxpayers in this matter held various holdings in the following companies: Ferro Structural Steel (Toronto) Limited Ferro Erectors (Toronto) Limited Halton Steel Joist Limited, and in a partnership known as Ferro Holdings. 4 By March 1969 a tight money situation had developed because of Ferro's declining sales and, as a result, policy differences arose among the three shareholders who are the subject of this application. 5 Spira was blocking the expansion plans of Randell and Salamon, and it is apparent to the Board that his services were no longer really wanted by his associates. ... </p>] (6) Spira agrees to be employed and Randell and Salamon agree to cause Ferro Structural Steel (Toronto) Limited to employ Spira as a consultant at a salary of $3,900 per annum, payable $75.00 per week commencing April 1st, 1969, and running until the 1st day of November, 1974... 7 Under an agreement dated March 31, 1969 between Ferro Structural Steel (Toronto) Limited and William Spira, Ferro purportedly engaged Spira from April 1, 1969 at the rate of $75 per week, the agreement to come to an end when the final instalment was paid up to and including November 1, 1974. 8 The language of section 2 of the agreement of March 28, 1969 is precise and says, in effect, that the consideration for the sale of Spira's shares and partnership interest shall be a contract of employment for Spira plus $2 in cash, which makes the contract of employment part of the agreement for the sale of Spira's holdings. 9 It was adduced in evidence that Spira was never asked to render any service, and Spira testified that it was never intended that he should perform any services as a consultant. ... Accordingly, I find that what Spira agreed to sell and what Randell and Salamon agreed to purchase were Spira's holdings and not his services, and that the consideration for the shares was $20,000 plus $2. 13 The Board therefore determines as a fact (a) that the amounts of $75 per week paid by Ferro to Spira were paid as consideration for the sale of shares by Spira to Randell and Salamon; (b) that the payments were of a capital nature; and (c) that Randell and Salamon, in respect of their 1969, 1970 and 1971 taxation years, each received a benefit pursuant to subsection 8(1) of the Income Tax Act. ...

Subsequent to the above-described assignment, she assigned her right to the amount to the respective wives of the appellant and George Anastas, each wife taking a 50% share of the right to the total debt, and for which share only nominal consideration was paid in each case. ... A copy of the director’s minutes effecting the first assignment was entered as Exhibit A-1: IN CONSIDERATION (sic) of certain valuable consideration and the sum of one dollar ($1) paid to us, we hereby assign to Mary Kathleen Cusack the account of Ventures Marketing owing to us in the amount of $44,667.77. ... I am also satisfied that the effect of Exhibit A-1, as far as GCP Ltd was concerned, was to eliminate the accounts receivable from consideration in its records for purposes of the sale. ...

An amount received by from another (a) during a period while the payee was an officer of, or in the employment of, the payer, or (b) on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of, an obligation arising out of an agreement made by the payer with the payee immediately prior to, during or immediately after a period that the payee was an officer of, or in the employment of, the payer, shall be deemed, for the purposes of section 5, to be remuneration for the payee’s services rendered as an officer or during the period of employment, unless it is established that, irrespective of when the agreement, if any, under which the amount was received was made or the form or legal effect thereof, it cannot reasonably be regarded as having been received (c) as consideration or partial consideration for accepting the office or entering into the contract of employment, (d) as remuneration or partial remuneration for services as an officer or under the contract of employment, or (e) in consideration or partial consideration for a covenant with reference to what the officer or employee is, or is not, to do before or after the termination of the employment. In other words, a sum paid by an employer to his employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of section 5, to be remuneration for the payee’s services, unless the sum received cannot reasonably be regarded as consideration for an office, remuneration for services or consideration for a convenant; this reflects the comments of the learned Noël, J, in Ransom (supra). ...

On July 20, 1965 Pawnee, for the purpose of implementing the terms of settlement and for a consideration of $1 and other good and valuable consideration assigned its Renke lease of February 19, 1964 to California Standard and California Standard, on its part in consideration of the nominal consideration of $1 paid by Frederick Renke and Pawnee respectively, released the said Renke and Pawnee from all claims for damages arising out of the legal proceedings between the parties. ... In consideration of the covenants contained herein, it is agreed between us as follows: 1. ... After a thorough consideration of all the evidence I have reached the conclusion that Pawnee was clearly in the business of trading in mineral and oil titles and leases. ...

(c) A critical consideration of the reasons advanced for the eventual abandonment or the frustration of the stated intention. ... As indicated in Bassani (supra), the consideration of alternatives should be regarded as a responsible business approach in making any investment decision and in itself it need not be a factor in attracting income tax liability for the investor. ... A conclusion must be reached by the Board as to where, along the scale from the “consideration of a possibility” to a “viable or probable alternative”, the prospect of such a sale was placed at the date of acquisition by the taxpayer. ...

(e) The company acquired the assets and assumed the liabilities of the partnership for a consideration of $77,532. ... The company had already paid the Appellant all of his share of the $77,532 consideration for the partnership’s assets and liabilities apart from the $19,000 corresponding to his share of the consideration paid for non-existent assets. ... I consider Mr Murray’s appraisal to have been prepared with due care and consideration. ...

This bus had been purchased by the appellant in 1968 and was not in the best condition. 3.16 The price of $31,500 does not seem to have been the subject of a great deal of consideration. ... Thus in order to obtain the benefits of the Act with respect to dispositions of eligible capital property, it is necessary, under subsection 14(1), that the consideration (the contract on the three routes granted by the appellant for the sum of $31,500) be such that if any payment had been made by the appellant after 1971 to acquire that consideration, the payment would have been an eligible capital expenditure within the meaning of paragraph 14(5)(b). ... Moreover, if it takes into consideration the fact that the appellant had been serving the said routes since its incorporation in 1966, three years after Mr Lague himself acquired and served them (para 3.07) and if it takes into consideration the fact that each tenderer was in practice the only one to tender for its own routes (para 3.08), this strengthens the appellant’s position in this regard. ...