Search - consideration

That such a prospect (of sale) would be a consideration I do not doubt, but it should not in this case detract from the inherent characteristics and use of Peachland before, during and after the involvement of Lucretia Moubray, and the fact that she owned only a fifty per cent interest. ...

The appellant did not present anything of substance in support of them, and the results to this point do not warrant any consideration being given in his favour with respect to the deductions claimed on the basis of drafts to the Royal Bank or the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce during 1975 or 1976. ...

Notwithstanding subsection (1)(g) a taxpayer’s loss, if any, from the disposition of a property, to the extent that it is (ii) a loss from the disposition of a debt or other right to receive an amount, unless the debt or right, as the case may be, was acquired by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property (other than exempt income) or as consideration for the disposition of capital property to a person with whom the taxpayer was dealing at arm’s length, is nil. ...

Background The appellant at all relevant times resided at 72 Thatcher Drive, in the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba (Thatcher), and was the spouse of Carl J Thor- steinson (C J T) who was himself assessed to additional income tax on September 12, 1977 with explanations relevant to this appeal as follows: 1973 Add: Net Rental Income re: 2791 Pembina Hwy (Capital Cost Allowance Claimed Amounted to $875) 617.15 1974 (1) Add: Net Rental Income Re: 2791 Pembina Hwy $498.42 Add: Capital Cost Allowance disallowed as property was disposed of on December 31, 1974 1,412.50 1,910.92 (2) Recapture of 1973 CCA 875.00 (3) Taxable Capital Gain re sale of 2791 Pem bina Hwy proceeds—December 31, 1974 $142,000.00 Cost—June 1973 67,000.00 Capital Gain $ 75,000.00 Taxable Capital Gain (1/2) $37,500.00 The amounts of additional tax assessed against C J T in the Sept 12/1977 assessments were: 1973 increase $ 516.66 1974 increase 24,098.11 1975 increase 8,165.50 32,780.27 Contentions In view of the nature of this appeal, and the issues raised therein, the Board notes first, the position of the respondent: — By transfer dated July 2, 1976 and registered in the Winnipeg Land Titles on July 9, 1976, C J T transferred his one-half interest in real property (“Thatcher”) in Winnipeg to the appellant; —The transfer was made for a consideration in excess of $32,957.22; —On the day of the transfer, C J T was liable to pay an amount not less than $32,957.22 under the Income Tax Act. ...

One consideration may point so clearly that it dominates other and vaguer indications in the contrary direction. ...

The net cast by those words is, I believe, much wider than that cast by the United Kingdom legislation under consideration in the Henley v Murray case. ...

This is confirmed by another consideration. 4.3.5 Let us not forget that the appellant’s wife had the obligation to pay the mortgage. ...

En date du 13 mai 1970 les acheteurs avaient consenti, pour une considération de $5,000 à une option pour l’achat d’une partie de terrain à M Morand, in trust pour une compagnie de motoneiges (pièce I-2). ...

The test in a case such as this was stated in the reasons for judgment of Cattanach, J in Gabco Limited v MNR, [1968] CTC 313 at 323; 68 DTC 5210 at 5216: It is not a question of the Minister or this Court substituting its judgment for what is a reasonable amount to pay, but rather a case of the Minister or the Court coming to the conclusion that no reasonable business man would have contracted to pay such an amount having only the business consideration of the appellant in mind. ...

Ces pièces produites pour les quatre années comme exhibits A-2 à A-5 ont démontré les dépenses suivantes: 1970: $1,526.92 1971: $1,037.56 1972: $ 879.36 1973: $ 878.31 3.11 Relativement aux dépenses d’automobile, 100% des pièces justificatives ont été accordées mais le tout a été diminué de 40% en considération d’usage personnel. 3.12 Des mauvaises créances avaient été réclamées par l’appelant qui ont été refusées par l’intimé faute de pièces. ...