Search - consideration

It seems to me that the requirements of paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Act are met if the expenses are incurred for the purpose of gaining income from a business, regardless of the time period in which the expenses were paid, or the consideration received. ...

We hope that you will give this matter your kind consideration and that we will hear from you in the near future. ...

Nothing indicates that the character of the operation had changed when the outlays under consideration were made. ...

The Wife further covenants and agrees to execute and deliver to the Husband concurrent herewith, a registrable Quit Claim Deed covering her one-half joint interest of and in Lot “A” of Lots Thirty-one (31) and Thirty-two (32) of Block Two (2), of Section Seventeen (17), Block Four (4) North, Range Six (6) West, Plan No. 14485, New Westminster District; such Quit Claim Deed to be in consideration of the premises and a third mortgage back to the Wife on the security of the said parcel of land on the sum of $3,000.00, payable within six months of a written demand therefor given by the Wife to the Husband at any time after three years from the date hereof, together with interest payable as to as to [sic] 1/12th thereof monthly at the rate of ten (10%) per centum per annum, calculated yearly, not in advance, and with a prepayment cluase [sic]; which said third mortgage is also to be executed and delivered concurrent herewith. ...

Counsel submitted for the Board’s consideration the cases of Massey-Ferguson Limited v Her Majesty the Queen, [1974] CTC 671; 74 DTC 6529 and [1977] CTC 6; 77 DTC 5013; S Hart Green v MNR, 2 Tax ABC 218; 4 DTC 6; Prazoff v MNR, 10 Tax ABC 145; 54 DTC 141, and Jean-Pau! ...

The candidate’s outline of his proposed work program is, in most cases, the major consideration, and the selection of successful applicants is therefore on a competitive basis. ...

Counsel for the respondent, in support of the argument presented by counsel for Mrs Collins, stated that Exhibit A-1 is not the written separation agreement envisaged by paragraph 11(1)(1) of the Income Tax Act for the years in question, for three reasons: (1) Exhibit A-1 is not under seal and there is no consideration from Mrs Collins, and therefore it is not an enforceable contract. (2) It was merely an agreement to agree (and with this second point I can wholeheartedly agree that it was “an agreement to agree’’). (3) If the document was an agreement, it was not a written separation agreement as required by paragraph 11(1)(), which also requires the husband to live separate and apart from his spouse as stated in the said section, which I now quote: 11(1) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a), (b) and (h) of subsection (1) of section 12, the following amounts may be deducted in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year: (I) an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year, pursuant to a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or pursuant to a written agreement, as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if he was living apart from, and was separated pursuant to a divorce, judicial separation or written separation agreement from, his spouse or former spouse to whom he was required to make the payment at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year; Having heard the evidence of both parties, I am satisfied that Exhibit A-1 is a written separation agreement on which the parties relied until August 7, 1972, when, Mrs Collins and the children having moved to Toronto, a revised separation agreement was entered into by Dr and Mrs Collins. ...

The operating expenses of, and the income from, the building in 1971 were taken into consideration and analysed. ...

Yet there is no evidence before the Board that a contract, an agreement, or even an understanding existed between Lépine and El Pine Construction Ltd in this respect; and, more importantly, there is no evidence that any consideration was paid by El Pine Construction Ltd to Lépine for half ownership of the Belvedere Motel which might justify its receiving $101,000 from the proceeds of its sale. ...

Re McAllister and Toronto and Suburban Railway Company, 40 OLR 252 (Supreme Court of Ontario 1917), held that ordinary stone in a quarry was not a “mineral” within the meaning of the statute that was there under consideration. ...