Search - consideration

Findings In my view there is only one point at issue here—does the purchase of property, with only the apparent purpose of holding it until it can be resold at a satisfactory profit, warrant such consideration that the gain therefrom should be on capital rather than on income account. ... While I am certainly prepared to accept that a “longer” view of the retention period, as opposed to a “shorter” one, might have merit in examining a situation where there are a number of factors involved for consideration, I do not regard it as determinative of the character of any gain realized. ...

The consideration of subsection 163(3) proceeded in the absence of any assistance from the appellant (as mentioned, he was not presented by legal counsel). ... He contended that the assessments failed to give adequate consideration to large gambling gains made by him and that he failed to report the house profits because he was not familiar with new income tax provisions. ...

The consideration for the said agreement was that the company would be released from all claims I might have against it either as a result of my former employment by the company and/or in respect of the agreement referred to in paragraph 4 hereof, or any other claims whatsoever. ... Some two months later, he had an opportunity to work for another publishing company, so he telephoned Mr Bowering to cancel the July 24 agreement in consideration of a lump sum payment of $17,000. ...

It is this very designation which is under attack in this appeal by the taxpayer, but this designation must be regarded as the result of a serious consideration of the alternative designation or designations which otherwise could be attributed to any such amount with some apparent validity by a taxpayer. ... Certain exact provisions have been made in the Act allowing consideration to some items included in “Other Sources of Income”. ...

In my opinion, for the appellants to be successful in their respective appeals, they have to satisfy the onus of establishing not only that they and their wives were the registered joint and equal owners of the Danforth Avenue property, but they must establish what part of the consideration for the acquisition of the property was paid by the appellants’ wives. ... No evidence whatever was adduced to establish that in the transfer of property from the Tip Top partnership (which is shown as the owner of the property in January 1974) to V & M Properties (apparently the appellants’ and their wives’) that any consideration was paid for the property. ...

In March of 1973 the appellant and Reykdal Investments Ltd (hereinafter called “Investments”) entered into an agreement with Dot to purchase a one-half interest in the shopping centre for a consideration of $100,000, plus the assumption of one-half of a mortgage indebtedness of $950,000. ... In consideration the appellant and Investments received an option to purchase the Frontier Shopping Centre. ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1976] CTC 2228, 76 DTC 1175 A W Prociuk:—The appellant, Alan J Wing, appeals from the respondent’s reassessment of his income for the taxation year 1971, wherein the sum of $5,200 was added as a benefit he received from his company, A J Wing Construction Limited, pursuant to the provisions of subsection 8(1) of the Income Tax Act, as it was then in force, as consideration for the sale of shares owned by him in Superior Brick and Tile (1969) Limited to it, in December of 1971, on the assumption that the said shares were of no value. ... He does not admit any allegations of fact in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the Notice of Appeal and he says that in assessing the Appellant for income tax for the 1971 taxation year, the Minister of National Revenue, assumed, inter alia, that (a) on or about 15 December 1971, the Appellant sold shares owned by him in Superior Brick and Tile (1969) Limited to A J Wing Construction Limited, a company of which the Appellant was the President and chief shareholder; (b) the consideration received by the Appellant from A J Wing Construction Limited on the sale of the said shares in Superior Brick and Tile Limited (1969) to A J Wing Construction Limited was $5,200.00: (c) at the time the said shares in Superior Brick and Tile (1969) were sold by the Appellant to A J Wing Construction Limited their value was nil: (d) during the 1971 taxation year, a benefit or advantage in the amount of $5,200.00 was conferred on the Appellant by A J Wing Construction Limited. ...

This freight rate advantage, along with the sales tax advantage, is alleged by the appellant to be the sole reason for the existence of the two companies, and it is argued that it made good business sense to take advantage of these two situations and therefore the consideration of any saving in income tax was not one of the main factors in the decision. ... An example of a case where the other considerations dictated the creation of several corporations and the income tax benefit arising therefrom was only an incidental benefit is Jordans Rugs Limited et al v MNR, [1969] CTC 445. ...

To substantiate this point, the appellants refer to a letter dated February 25, 1970 concerning the two companies in which the Department of National Revenue advised the taxpayers that consideration was being given at that time to the application of subsection 138A(2) of the Act for the years 1967 and 1969 (Exhibit A-2). ... On May 11, 1972 the Department of National Revenue advised the above taxpayers by letter (Exhibit A-3) that consideration was again being given to associating them pursuant to subsection 138A(2) in the 1971 taxation year. ...

It seems to me that in view of the above observations we should be very careful to weigh all these considerations before qualifying an “outsider” as a trader for income tax purposes, and that our legal concept of trading should as much as possible follow the interpretation which those who are professionally engaged in trading in securities attach to that expression. ... The appellant’s purchase was not an underwriting, nor was it a participation in an underwriting syndicate with respect to an issue of securities for the purpose of effecting their sale to the public, and did not have the characteristics of that kind of a venture.* [2] In respect to this important consideration, Mr Justice Urie noted in his Wellington Hotel Holdings judgment (at p 482 [5397]): I do not understand Martland, J to have rejected the possibility that a company can engage in the business of trading in securities notwithstanding that it is not its main business and it is not a securities broker in the accepted sense. ...