Search - consideration

., 1977; BETWEEN: CHRIS CHRISTAKOS, of Halifax, in the County of Halifax and Province of Nova Scotia, hereinafter called the “Purchaser”, OF THE FIRST PART- and- JOHN KAMOULAKOS, of Halifax aforesaid, hereinafter called the “Vendor”, OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS the Parties hereto are equal partners in a business known as “Europa Restaurant”, which is located at 171 Main Street, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia: AND WHEREAS the Purchaser has agreed to purchase the interest of the Vendor of the said business for a price of FOUR THOUSAND ($4,000) DOLLARS, upon certain terms and conditions; NOW IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of FOUR THOUSAND ($4,000) DOLLARS and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. ...

In assessing the appellant for his 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 taxation years, the respondent relied, inter alia, on the following assumptions of facts: (a) During the 1971, 1972,1973 and 1974 taxation years, the appellant was carrying on various businesses; (b) During the 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 taxation years, the appellant derived and received income as outlined in Schedule A attached hereto from the carrying on of these various businesses; (c) When the appellant filed his income tax returns for the 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 taxation years, he failed to report the said income outlined in Schedule A; (d) On December 21,1971, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1971 for an amount of $1,000 from Lino Simaglia for protection services; (e) During the 1972, 1973 and 1974 taxation years, the appellant also received in each year an amount of $1,000 from Lino Simaglia for protection services; (f) On May 2, 1972, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1972 for an amount of $21,500 for a participation in an Easter Eggs operation; (g) On September 9, 1972, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1972 for an amount of $10,000 from a narcotic operation; (h) During his 1972 taxation year, the appellant undertook to commit an assault on behalf of Michel Cutone, and on July 11,1972, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1972 for an amount of $375 for such services; (i) On December 19,1973, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1973 for an amount of $500 from litigation settlement for Luigi Salavatore; (j) The appellant also earned an additional amount of income in 1973 of $3,700 from the litigation Settlement mentioned in subparagraph (i); (k) On July 23,1974, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1974 for an amount of $1,200 representing his share in a junket operation as a partner with Vincent Cotroni, Michel Pozza, Nicholas Di Iorio and Irving Goldstein; (l) On August 10, 1973, the appellant earned income for an amount of $2,000 from Vincent Cotroni as a profit from junket operations; (m) During his 1973 taxation year, the appellant settled a dispute for Giovanni Proetti and earned income for an amount of $500 in consideration of his services in that matter; (n) On December 13,1973, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1973 for an amount of $100,000 in the St-Martin shopping center operation; (o) During his 1973 taxation year, the appellant received an amount of $500 from Nick Maturo in consideration of his undertaking to commit an assault on a person living in Italy; (p) During the 1974 taxation year, the appellant earned income for an amount of $2,800 in the course of an Easter Eggs operation with Lino Simaglia; (q) During the 1974 taxation year, the appellant received an amount of $2,500 for having scared a person in order to settle a litigation on behalf of Abe Isaif: (r) All the above-mentioned admissions were made by the appellant in his business premises. ...

Grantaun closed the transaction on December 15,1972, purchasing the property for a total consideration in the amount of $180,068.95, with the appellant making a cash contribution according to her 25% interest in Grantaun. ... I suggest it is not relevant to this consideration because the taxpayer did not know, but it is instructive to look to see that, in fact, this was not a real estate trader in a speculative sense, at least on the face of the documentation or the facts submitted by the Minister. ...

—On March 27, 1975 an agreement was reached with the company establishing a consideration in the amount of $1,529,100 for the properties in Concession 10 which had been expropriated. — By an agreement the properties in Concession 9 were sold to the Province of Ontario on March 27, 1975, for a total consideration of $3,394,100. ...

The contract between the appellant and Associates for a fourteen-month period was dated November 1, 1971, (Exhibit A-2) and it reads as follows: WHEREAS by an agreement dated December 7,1970, Roderick Angus Gordon and others as therein named became partners upon the terms as therein mentioned, under the name of ANAESTHESIA ASSOCIATES, AND WHEREAS the PARTY OF THE FIRST PART has agreed to appoint the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART as an Assistant in the Practice of Anaesthesia for a period of one year dating from the 1st day of November, AD 1971, upon the terms herein set out: NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the sum of $28,000, which said sum shall be paid by the PARTY OF THE FIRST PART to the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART in fourteen equal monthly instalments commencing on November 30, AD, 1971, the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART agrees to act as an Assistant in the Practice of Anaesthesia conducted by the PARTY OF THE FIRST PART subject to the terms, conditions and stipulations expressed in the following articles, that is to say: 1. ... Its terms and conditions were exactly the same as the first contract except that the consideration was $15,000 for six months and the term was only for six months. ...

AND WHEREAS the Trustee will be entitled to a pro-rata share of the whole consideration as to either or both of Part I and Il on the basis of his absolute ownership of the whole of the lands and premises on Part II and the Trustee’s now retained 2/10 share of the whole of the lands designated as Part I. NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH that in consideration of the sum of $23,000... the Trustee... agrees to apportion and sell a 1/10 share of all future liabilities, profits and assets as to any and all of the real property designated as Part I on the Plan of Survey attached hereto as Schedule “A”. ...

In his notice of appeal (paragraph 5), the appellant alleged.. the Court recognizing that the appellant was the holder of ‘acquired rights’”. 3.06 Following negotiations between the City of Drummondville and the appellant, an agreement was reached in June 1972 whereby the appellant agreed to cease operating its business and in consideration of its renouncing to its “acquired rights” an amount of $40,000 became payable to it. ... Now let us quote subsection 21(1) of the ITAR and let us check if any amount must be included in its income according to his contention: Goodwill and other “nothings”. (1) Where as a result of a transaction occurring after 1971 an amount (in this section referred to as the ‘actual amount’) has become payable to a taxpayer in respect of a business carried on by him throughout the period commencing January 1, 1972 and ending immediately after the transaction occurred, for the purposes of section 14 of the amended Act the amount that has become so payable to him shall be deemed to be the aggregate of (a) an amount equal to a percentage, equal to 40% plus the percentage (not exceeding 60%) obtained when 5% is multiplied by the number of full calendar years ending in the period and before the transaction occurred, of the amount, if any, by which the actual amount exceeds the portion thereof referred to in subparagraph (b)(i), and (b) an amount equal to the lesser of (i) the percentage, described in paragraph (a), of such portion, if any, of the actual amount as may reasonably be considered as being the consideration received by him for the disposition of, or for allowing the expiry of, a government right, and (ii) the amount, if any, by which the portion described in subparagraph (i) exceeds the greater of (A) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is an outlay or expenditure, made or incurred by the taxpayer as a result of a transaction occurring before 1972 for the purpose of acquiring the government right, or the taxpayer’s original right in respect of the government right, to the extent that the outlay or expenditure was not otherwise deducted in computing the income of the taxpayer for any taxation year and would, if made or incurred by him as a result of a transaction occurring after 1971, be an eligible capital expenditure of the taxpayer, and (B) the fair market value to the taxpayer as at December 31, 1971 of the government right or the taxpayer’s original right in respect of the government right, if no outlay or expenditure was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of acquiring the right or, if an outlay or expenditure was made or incurred, if that outlay or expenditure would have been an eligible capital expenditure of the taxpayer if it had been made (or) incurred as a result of a transaction occurring after 1971. ...

The consideration for the grant of the option was $5,000. The option permitted the optionee to purchase for $300,000 Lot 1, Plan 11687, Lot 9, Plan 2347 and Lots 7 and 8, Plan 2347. ... On September 1,1972, Messrs Salt and Haller entered into an agreement providing that one fifth of the $5,000 consideration for the granting of the option, one fifth of the $7,500 extension price, and one fifth of the purchase price in the event of exercise be paid to Mr Haller. ...

Moreover, the evidence of Mr Simkin made it quite clear that the appellant decided to agree to Metropolitan’s leasing scheme on the basis of considerations related only to the financial welfare of the appellant. ... Counsel for the appellant referred to the following passage from the Reasons for Judgment of P H Maguire, DJ, in Her Majesty the Queen v Edmund Peachey Limited, [1978] CTC 606 at p 609; 78 DIC 6411 at 6414, and he argued that the act of entry into the leases was an act demonstrating a “definite change in position”: The decision of Jackett, CJ, in Les Entreprises Chelsea Limitée v Minister of National Revenue, [1970] CTC 598; 70 DTC 6379, is of importance on one point, in my consideration of the issue here involved. ...

From the latter case there is the statement: I do not say this consideration is absolutely final or determinative; but in a rough way I think it is not a bad criterion of what is capital expenditure to say that capital expenditure is a thing that is going to be spent once and for all, and income expenditure is a thing that is going to recur every year. ... I cannot see how these expenses can be considered in the same category as the expenses which were under consideration in the M P Drilling case. ...