Search - consideration

The appellant made no effort to acquire these claims and no cash was paid by way of consideration. Nothing changed hands which could be construed by the Board as consideration for the acquisition of these claims. ...

After thorough and sympathetic consideration of all the aspects of the appeals, both presiding Members^ who were bound to apply the Act as written, dismissed the appeals most reluctantly. There is nothing in the case at bar which differs essentially from the facts and arguments presented in the Donald M Lawson appeal, and there is no way that the circumstances of the appeal under consideration can fall within the meaning of section 27 of the Income Tax Act that was applicable in 1969 and 1970. ...

The reassess- ment in question was made pursuant to the provisions of subsection 79C(17) by reason of the fact that the appellant, in the Minister’s Opinion, acquired a share of common stock from a deferred profit sharing plan of Golden West Seeds Ltd for a consideration less than the fair market value. ... The fact that the shares could, under special circumstances, represent greater value than the consideration paid is not the criterion for determining the fair market value thereof. ...

All earnings were the property of the appellant but were subject to the claim of the estate under the agreement. 5 The amounts required to be set aside are a measure of the net worth or value of the business, unascertained at the time the agreement was entered into but neverthless part of the purchase consideration. 6 An amount equivalent to 25% of the net profits was not the appellant's to deal with as it was “reserved by the Estate”. ... A price is normally arrived at by the capitalization of past earnings adjusted for equity values. 10 In this case it seems clear to me that the reservation was in fact part of the purchase consideration, and that all payments pursuant to the agreement in essence relate to the acquisition of the business as a capital asset. 11 For these reasons the Board has no alternative but to dismiss the appeals. ...

An amount received by one person 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 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 aggreement, 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. 4.02 Law Cases 1. ...

An amount received by one person 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. 4.2 The following judgments were cited by the parties: Dale (HM Inspector of Taxes) v de Soissons, 32 TC 118; [1950] 1 All ER 912; [1950] 2 All ER 460; Henry (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Arthur Foster, 16 TC 605, 145 LT 225; Peter Moss v MNR, [1963] CTC 535; 63 DTC 1359; Thomas G Quance v Her Majesty the Queen, [1974] CTC 225; 74 DTC 6210; Her Majesty the Queen v Robert B Atkins, [1975] CTC 377; 75 DTC 5263; [1976] CTC 497; 76 DTC 6258; Paul Girouard v MNR, [1977] CTC 2588; 78 DTC 1011. 4,3 Comments The judgment of the Superior Court in fact condemning the company to pay to the appellant the amount of $23,846.27 was based on paragraphs 2, 4 and 7 of the contract (paragraph 3.2 of thie facts) signed on September 18, 1968. ...

The Board is going to take this sum into consideration and will reduce the amount of the undeclared income each year by $4,000. ...

As for the second question, he found it impossible to establish that he purchased the cottage for the purpose of renting it and he further failed to show that he had given any serious consideration to his plans. ...

A sale, not in the way of trade, or an asset does not attract tax on the consideration. Whatever else comes within the ambit of annual profits and gains, the consideration received by the taxpayer does not. ... The royalties paid in lump sums were described in the agreement as “consideration for the rights granted”. ...

This company, late in 1967 or early 1968, began to consider the possibility of converting from finance to investment business, and it appears that the appellant was aware of these considerations. ... This release is in the usual form, undertaking, in consideration of the said payments of $15,000 per annum for 8 years, commencing on January 2, 1969, to release the company of all claims he may have against it, and not to sue the company for breach of agreement. ... Having given the matter my best consideration, I find that the sums of $20,000 and $14,500 paid by MGF to the appellant were in respect of services rendered by the appellant, and therefore taxable. ...