Search - consideration

In the present case, the assumed facts are described fin the reply to notice of appeal, paragraph 4, subparagraphs (a) to (g): (a) that prior to entering the agreement of June 3, 1974 and after its termination, and in the ordinary course of its business, the Appellant was and continued to be in the business of selling sulphuric acid and crude sulphur; (b) that the agreement required C.I.L. to purchase a minimum of 50,000 tons of Sulphuric acid, and further purchases above this amount were at C.I.L.’s option; (c) that after it had purchased 29,469 tons of sulphuric acid from the Appellant, C.I.L. sought to terminate the agreement; (d) that by a letter dated December 11, 1975 and signed by both parties, C.I.L. was released from its obligation to purchase the balance of 20,531 tons of sulphuric acid in consideration of payment by C.I.L. to the Appellant of $75,000; (e) that the amount of $75,000 was paid to the Appellant in lieu of sales income that would otherwise have been earned by the Appellant in the ordinary course if the agreement had not been terminated; (f) that the loss of the sale of the remaining 20,531 tons of sulphuric acid did not destroy or materially cripple the whole structure of the Appellant’s business and no part of the $75,000 was received by the Appellant as compensation for the destruction or crippling of the whole structure of its business; and (g) that the said sum of $75,000 received in the course of the Appellant’s business is therefore income from a business or source and is to be included in computing the Appellant’s income for the 1975 taxation year pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Income Tax Act. ... It is hereby understood and agreed between us, that in consideration of payment by CIL to Border Chemical of the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) in lawful money of Canada, by cheque to be issued to you within ten days following receipt back of this letter duly signed on behalf of your Company, Border Chemical hereby releases and discharges CIL from all further obligation whatsoever under the said Contract 14th June 1974, hereby accordingly terminated, and waives any and all claims, rights of redress, damages or other compensation present or future arising out of or in any way connected with the former said Contract between our Companies, the whole to be effective as of the date hereof. ...

The appellant and T S Kelleher, a partner in the law firm, acquired in partnership property interest in a building and certain lands composed of part of lot number 12 and part of lot number 13 on the south side of King Street East. 3.04 The lands were acquired by the appellant and T S Kelleher, for a consideration of $63,000 subject to adjustments, and at the same time, a first mortgage with the Toronto-Dominion Bank, King and Frederick Branch, for $48,000 was registered. 3.05 The appellant and T S Kelleher paid approximately a total sum of $16,000 cash on the purchase of the said lands, monies which had been borrowed from the aforementioned bank. 3.06 The subject property, was leased to one Mr Oberlerchner. ... The Board takes into consideration the declaration quoted in part in paragraph 3.12 and made by Mr William Thomson, Kitchener planning director concerning the fact that the public was mostly unaware of future city plans. ...

Ren Lon Properties Limited, Lar Lon Properties Limited, Frank Lon Properties Limited and Wilstan Construction Limited refused to sign because the agreement contained a term that: “In consideration of Peters Wiles Limited negotiating the purchase of the property... and being instrumental in the formation of this joint venture... agree to grant to Peters Wiles Limited the exclusive and irrevocable selling rights for the lands.. ... CONCLUSION After a careful consideration of the characteristics of the property and the evidence of value available to us, it is our opinion that the market value of the fee simple interest in the 55,734 sq ft of land with the improvements thereon, as at this date, is about $2,440,000. ...

The amount of $7,500 is therefore allowed; and, 3. the receipt of $8,500 by the appellant in consideration of the alleged sale of a car has no probative value and will be ignored, but the receipt of $2,500 for the sale of the station wagon to Teasdale is accepted (Exhibit A-17). ... At page 22 of his report, Mr Roy states: FINAL CONCLUSION The Appraiser is aware that the subject property was sold on March 16, 1973 for the total consideration of $700,000 and it is his opinion as a real estate broker and a real estate appraiser that, since the subject property located in Bell’s Corners, is a unique site with an historical building partly built in 1870, an experienced purchaser in the restaurant or tavern business would have paid either as of December 31,1971 or November 13, 1973, a very special premium for acquiring such a property with a great potential; based on my general experience, an amount as much as $100,000 would have been a realistic and fair investment. ...

Argument Dealing with the matter of the alleged interest income, counsel made two points for the Board’s consideration: —Since the appellant already held a mortgage on the property, that which was acquired was only the interest of Clearstream. ... Therefore, the consideration of a gain on the total transaction existed at the moment the appellant embarked on the venture. ...

Having in mind the above considerations I am of the opinion that the facts admitted for the purpose of the present appeal allow me to consider that the shares of Mr Devitt’s estate were vested absolutely and indefeasibly in Mrs Devitt and therefore the value under paragraphs 7(1)(a) and (b) must be deducted from the aggregate net value of the estate. Counsel for the respondent submitted that a devise in a will for lifetime or of a lesser interest to the spouse, comprises a settlement and rested his submission upon paragraph 58(1)(q) which states as follows: 58. (1) In this Act, (q) “settlement” includes (i) any trust, whether expressed in writing or otherwise, in favour of any persons, and, if contained in a deed or other instrument effected the settlement, whether or not such deed or other instrument was made for valuable consideration as between the settlor and any other person, and (ii) any deed or other instrument under or by virtue of which a usufruct or substitution is created or any real property or estate or interest. therein stands limited to any persons by way of succession; I disagree with the respondent’s submission because it contradicts paragraph 3(1)(e) which says: 3. (1) There shall be included in computing the aggregate net value of the property passing on the death of a person the value of all property, wherever situated, passing on the death of such person, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, (e) property comprised in a settlement whenever made, whether by deed or any other instrument not taking effect as a will,... ...

The release agreement contains the following recital clause: AND WHEREAS John H Long, Pakall Limited, Pakall Manufacturing Limited and Pakall Compaction Equipment Limited wish no longer to be associated with or to be employed by Com-Pakall and wish to give up their rights under the said recited Agreements; WITNESSETH that in consideration of the sum of $20,000 now paid to John H Long, Pakall Limited, Pakall Manufacturing Limited and Pakall Compaction Equipment Limited, the receipt whereof is by each of them hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of these presents, Long and Pakall Limited, Pakall Manufacturing Limited and Pakall Compaction Equipment Limited do hereby remise, release and forever discharge Karl Heinz Schwamborn and Com-Pakall Construction Equipment Limited and each of them, their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, of and from all manner of actions, causes of action, suits, debts, claims and demands whatsoever which the said John H Long, Pakall Limited, Pakall Manufacturing Limited and Pakall Compaction Equipment Limited ever had, now have or which their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, or any of them, hereafter can, shall or may have for or by reason of any cause, matter or thing whatseover (sic) existing up to the present time and arising out of the said recited Agreements or otherwise. ...

The implied agency arrangements proposed by some appellants failed to take into account the major consideration (the financial obligation) in any way. ... Neither the rationale for that challenge nor the results which flow from its determination are direct considerations for the Board in deciding the merits of the basis upon which the Minister has reassessed in these particular situations. ...

Freda Limited and Audrey Cold Storage Limited, having sold their interests in the partnership to Ivanhoe Storage Limited before the end of the partnership’s 1964 fiscal year, were not properly assessed in respect of the said profits for their 1964 taxation year, and their appeals are therefore allowed in part and the matter referred back to the Ministre for re-consideration and reassessment in respect of that year. ...

I am not satisfied on a consideration of all of the evidence that it was the intention of the plaintiff and his wife to enter into a partnership in the legal sense but on the contrary the natural and preponderant inference from the evidence is that no such intention was present to their minds. ...