Search - consideration

Taking into consideration the above enactment, the assessor issued an assessment based upon the following calculation: Loss reported $ 50,022.93 Less: Charitable donations disallowed $ 2,413.00 Construction superintendents salary Capitalized 21,181.75 Legal fees capitalized: 1,643.50 Expenses disallowed 3,672.51 Profit on sale of maisonettes 545,767.83 Capital Cost Allowance: Claimed per Schedule $297,842.85 Allowed per Schedule 284,067.55 13,775.30 588,453.89 Revised Income $538,430.96 Less: 1964 Donations $ 2,434.75 1965 Donations 2,413.00 4,847.75 1963 Loss 139,324.86 1964 Loss 145,711.49 289,884.10 Revised Taxable Income $248,546.86 Calculation of Tax: $ 35,000.00 at 21% $ 7,350.00 $213,546.86 at 50% 106,773.43 $248,546.86 $114,123.43 Less: Provincial Tax Abatement—9% x $248,546.86 22,369.22 Federal Tax Payable $ 91,754.21 1963 1964 1965 Rental Income 5,071.05 148,028.81 158,179.25 Net Profit 2,597.68 36,765.81 36,971.60 (h) the net profit of the sale of the said Maisonettes was used by the Appellant to discharge a demand loan of $540,000.00 owed by it to its bankers; (i) the Appellant acquired the land and constructed the said Maisonettes thereon with a view to trading, developing or otherwise turning them to account at a profit, in the course of carrying on its business, in pursuance of its objects; (j) the Appellant since its inception has carried on the business of construction and sale of residential houses and the sub-division and sale of building lots; (k) prior to 1964, the Appellant did not own any properties other than the said Maisonettes from which it earned rental income; (l) all of the Appellant’s shareholders are either in the Real Estate or Construction business, or have a history of Real Estate transactions. ... After due consideration of the evidence and the strong argument of counsel for the appellant, I came to the conclusion that a wise and bright presentation does not always represent the law. ... If we look at the way the maisonettes were dealt with, one must take into consideration the fact that the land on which they were built was purchased from a shareholder and a director of the appellant. ...

In 1962 and 1963 the appellant acquired a total of 3,374 shares of Vancouver Airline Limousines Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “VAL”) for a consideration of one cent per share. ... On the contrary, Messrs Evans and Flusser applied successfully for an additional permit to transport passengers from Canada to the United States (Seattle, Washington), and when they sold the shares of the newly incorporated VAL (1963) Ltd for $200,000 they admitted that this Seattle permit was taken into consideration, along with the other permits, as a valuable asset. There is no reason, in the light of the foregoing, to ignore the appraisal of the respondent and take into consideration the nominal value of one cent per share. ...

BETWEEN: BRUCE LAWRENCE, Executive, of 301—14th Street North West, in the City of Calgary, Province of Alberta, (hereinafter called the “Lessor”) OF THE FIRST PART AND: SPRUNG INSTANT STRUCTURES LTD, a body corporate, duly incorporated under the laws of the Province of Alberta, and having an office at 1001—10th Avenue South West, in the City of Calgary, Province: of Alberta, (hereinafter called the “Lessee”) OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS the Lessor owns the units of equipment described in the Schedule annexed hereto; AND WHEREAS the Lessee wishes to lease the units of equipment from the Lessor on the terms and conditions hereinafter contained: NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the rental payments set out in the Schedule hereto, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows: 1. ... He did not suggest that those cases were the same as or similar to this appeal, but rather submitted that when the issue in this appeal was being considered, the same consideration should exist as those cases set forth. ... I cannot see a person spending $28,000 or $100,000 on an asset, even if there were tax shelter consideration, to gain 12 per cent on his investment for one year (let alone six months). ...

While that proposition might have merit in a consideration of a deduction claimed under paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Act, it is not the governing factor under paragraph 20(1)(l) of the Act. ... In either event, I find no basis for rejecting the claim based on the respondent’s argument that the loans were on capital account and therefore disqualified for consideration under section 20 of the Act. ... Nor was any consideration given to charging interest to the subsidiary on advances made by the respondent. ...

The consideration to be paid to the workman is not for a transfer of chattels, but for work and labour done and materials furnished. ...

The same considerations apply here. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals will be dismissed. ...

As part of the consideration for the purchase, the appellant took back from NDM Holdings a mortgage for $1,300,000. ...

(c) On consideration of the Notice of Objection, the Minister of National Revenue reached the conclusion that there was no change of use of the Ennismore property and, therefore, no deemed disposition in 1976 with the result that the Ennismore property remained in inventory. ...

According to Mr Bartlett, the reserve claimed by the appellant was fixed after consideration, in each case, of the age of the receivable, the reason for non-payment, the means of payment available to the debtor and the debtor’s record. ...

It has already been noted in this decision that the correspondence between the parties (Exhibit A-3), which is the only documentation prior to that date, does not fulfill the requirements of the “written separation agreement” called for under paragraph 60(b) of the Act, irrespective of whether they might fulfill the requirements of that section for purpose of consideration as “alimony or other allowance payable”. ...