Search - consideration

If hindsight based on the company’s subsequent earnings is an unacceptable consideration in evaluating its shares as at December 31, 1971, it seems to me that foresight or expectancy based on the potential of the company, the plans of the company, groundwork for increased earnings already laid down but not reflected in the company’s books, or any factors which existed and were demonstrable as having existed on Valuation Day and which could affect favourably or unfavourably the company’s normal projection of future earnings should, in my opinion, also be taken into account in arriving at a fair market value of the shares at that date. In other words, I do not believe that the simple application of a mathematical evaluation formula without taking into account pertinent considerations other than financial statements will always result in a true and fair market value of the shares. ...

In view of these considerations regarding the shareholders of Mars Finance Inc, the Board concludes that it is impossible to form a related group capable of controlling Mars Finance Inc, and that it is therefore impossible to satisfy the first condition of paragraph 39(4)(e) of the 1971 Act and paragraph 256(1)(e) of the 1972 Act. 6.2.2 Second and Third Conditions Since the third condition cannot be satisfied, and all three conditions must be met, the Board concludes that Mars Finance Inc and Les Immeubles Perron Ltée are not associated corporations. 6.3 Are Mars Finance Inc and J-Euclide Perron Ltée associated? ... Because of the above considerations, the other corporations cannot be deemed to be associated either. 7. ...

The fact that consideration thereof is one lump-sum payment does not alter its character in any way.” ... The fact that the consideration was. paid in a lump sum and not by instalments does not alter the nature of the transaction. ...

According to the appellants, this also should have been taken into consideration, either by way of a reserve for doubtful accounts or as a write-off. ... I can find, therefore, that ample consideration existed in the minds of the appellants at the time of the signing of Exhibit R-2 that this was a means of disposing of their interest in a continuing partnership without having to put up any of their own funds. ...

NOTE (my comment) — It can reasonably be observed that the language set out above taken from the first 4 paragraphs of Information Bulletin No 41 indicates quite clearly that a teacher is exempt from Canadian income tax for one period of up to two years on his remuneration from teaching, if he has come to Canada temporarily for the purpose of teaching and /f his stay in this country is not expected to exceed 24 consecutive months, ie a teacher appears to be entitled under the Information Bulletin to the aforesaid exemption even though he remains in Canada longer than 24 consecutive months if he can show that his stay in this country was not expected to exceed 24 consecutive months, the teacher’s original intention thereby becoming a relevant governing consideration. ... In outlining the Minister’s position in this appeal, Mr Thomas stated, in effect: that the sole question to be decided herein is whether or not the appellent is able to bring himself within the four corners of said Article X of the Schedule to the Canada-New Zealand Income Tax Agreement; that, even though the appellant is successful in establishing that he came to Canada in 1968 with the firm intention of staying only two years and no longer, that has no bearing on his tax liability in his 1968 and 1969 taxation years because the matter of his intention is not a relevant consideration in the interpretation and application of said Article X, and that the appellant cannot avail himself of the rules contained in Information Bulletin No 41, even though they were issued by no less a personage than the Deputy Minister of the Department of National Revenue, because the said Deputy Minister does not have the power to legislate nor to interpret legislation for other than his own purposes. ...

At that time, Burchett was about to leave on a skiing vacation, and it was suggested to him that he go on this vacation and, while he was away, give the matter some more consideration. ... I am not one that believes that the time factor between entering and leaving these projects is the main consideration in determining whether the gain realized is a capital gain or not. ...

The payment of $15,000 is the consideration for that release and nothing else: obviously Mr Linett, in an insolvent state, was making a compromise of his debts by the payment of a lesser amount. ... For the record, all of Exhibit A-2 and paragraph 14(d) of Exhibit A-1 are reproduced: TERMINATION AGREEMENT TERMINATION AGREEMENT (hereinafter called “Agreement”) made at Des Moines, Iowa between HOME READER SERVICE, INC, a Delaware corporation with offices at 111 Tenth Street, Des Moines, Iowa (hereinafter called “HRS”) and Jack Linett d/b/a HOME READER SERVICE OF MONTREAL (hereinafter referred to as “LINETT”) WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, HRS and LINETT entered into a Franchise Agreement dated November 30, 1960, and said Franchise Agreement has been amended from time to time, and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to terminate said Franchise Agreement and all amendments thereto (hereinafter collectively called “Franchise Agreement”), and WHEREAS, LINETT and HRS each desire to waive the sixty (60) day notice requirement set forth in said Franchise Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms of this AGREEMENT, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. ...

The appellant stated he would take $1,000 an acre and, as a result, by document dated January 12, 1973, the appellant, for a consideration of $500, granted to McGuigan’s principal an option on all his property valid until July 12, 1973, at a price of $1,000 per acre. ... Some consideration would be given to its proximity to Sale No 17. For these reasons it should not be justified as a basis for comparison. ...

The company, during the currency of their relationship as a company and as a shareholder of the company, has no obligation to him whatsoever with respect to the amount that he paid, his consideration for those shares. ... There would not appear to be constraints placed on a transfer of that kind, including value of the property, or consideration for the transfer. ...

Act The sections on which the respondent bases his assessment are subsections 138A(1), (3), paragraph 38(1)(a), subsection 8(3), subsection 81(1) and paragraph 139(1)(a) of the old Act: 138A. (1) Where a taxpayer has received an amount in a taxation year, (a) as consideration for the sale or other disposition of any shares of a corporation or of any interest in such shares, (b) in consequence of a corporation having (i) redeemed or acquired any of its shares or reduced its capital stock, or (ii) converted any of its shares into shares of another class or into an obligation of the corporation, or (c) otherwise, as a payment that would, but for this section, be exempt income, which amount was received by the taxpayer as part of a transaction effected or to be effected after June 13, 1963 or as part of a series of transactions each of which was or is to be effected after that day, one of the purposes of which, in the opinion of the Minister, was or is to effect a substantial reduction of, or disappearance of, the assets of a corporation.^ such a manner that the whole or any part of any tax that might otherwise have been or become payable under this Act in consequence of any distribution of income of a corporation has been or will be avoided, the amount so received by the taxpayer or such part thereof as may be specified by the Minister shall, if the Minister so directs, (d) be included in computing the income of the taxpayer for that taxation year, and (e) in the case of a taxpayer who is an individual, he deemed to have been received by him as a dividend described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 38. (3) On an appeal from an assessment made pursuant to a direction under this section, the Tax Appeal Board or the Exchequer Court may (a) confirm the direction; (b) vacate the direction if (i) in the case of a direction under subsection (1), it determines that none of the purposes of the transaction or series of transactions referred to in subsection (1) was or is to effect a substantial reduction of, or disappearance of, the assets of a corporation in such a manner that the whole or any part of any tax that might otherwise have been or become payable under this Act in consequence of any distribution of income of a corporation has been or will be avoided; or. ... Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act under which an appeal is made, the Board is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in conducting a hearing for the purposes of that Act, and all appeals shall be dealt with by the Board as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness will permit. ...