Search - consideration

National paid a consideration of $63,000 to the appellant and Mr Monson for the assignment. It is the appellant’s one-half share in that consideration which is in issue in this appeal. ... Although the appellant would have been prepared at the outset to assign the lease of the Belmont to Southwood for no or nominal consideration, he was not prepared to do so in the case of National because the successful operation of the theatre during the 1969 season had demonstrated that the lease was of value. ...

For the years under consideration, the appellant was a salesman for Clément et Frères Ltée. ... Income in salary and commission, and expenses disallowed by the respondent, for the years under consideration are as follows: Salary Commission Expenses disallowed 1971 $21,150.11 $10,750.11 $2,890.00 1972 $25,630.69 $15.230.69 $6,465.00 1973 $27,267.59 $16,347.59 $6,568,00 3.6. ... During the years under consideration, 80% of sales resulted from his own efforts. 3.11. ...

McWilliams also paid off the bank loan which he had guaranteed, and obtained a promissory note from Distributors, prior to the takeover by Merstill, in the amount of such payments totalling $147,426.07, which together with the preferred shares, was assigned to the appellant, (wife of Harry Meronek), to Mary Meronek, (wife of John Meronek), and to Ann Stilling, (wife of Ernest Stilling), in equal shares, for a consideration of $1 from each. ... On February 20, 1967 an agreement filed as Exhibit A-4 was executed to the effect that Harry Meronek purchased the interests of Stilling and John Meronek, and the appellant acquired the interests of Ann Stilling and Mary Meronek in Distributors, for a consideration of $1. ... (a) That the debentures came into existence for a full consideration in a market over which the appellant (respondent in this Court) had no control is irrelevant to the issue which is the character of the operation whereby he Subsequently acquired them. ...

In fact, his primary intention could have been to build a business premises or to build a rental property, but it is sufficient that if at the time of purchasing the property the appellant considered the possibility of resale at a profit and that consideration was one of the operating motivating considerations that led to the purchase of the property, then that is a sufficient intent, a secondary intent if you will, as substantial case law has defined it, that is, a sufficient intent to characterize the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade. ... I find no support in the case law cited by counsel to warrant the imposition of income tax merely on the consideration of a possibility, but the cross-examination by counsel showed that the appellant’s actions indicated a much stronger position than merely such passing reflection. ...

There, I was considering a case where the consideration given for the “plant” was “entering Into the low-priced supply contract”—a consideration very difficult to put a value on—and what I am sure that I had in mind is that, “prima facie”, the value of the consideration is equal to the value of what is received for it, so that where, as in my hypothetical case, what was received can easily be valued, and what was given is almost impossible to value, it is a fair statement that “prima facie, what he pays for the plant is the value of the plant”. ...

Therefore, in one way or another, this expense is taken into consideration in one year or in another. In computing the value of shares with the income approach, it must be taken into consideration. ... Ordinarily, in reading a case, it is not easy to see if the parties have taken taxes into consideration or not. ...

If, at the time of the sale an allocation of the total consideration paid by the purchaser was made among the various component elements of the package, there was no mention made of it in evidence. ... Section 5.1.1 provided as follows: 5.1 General Consent Policy In consideration of applications for consent to sever land, consideration shall be given to the following: 5.1.1 That the granting of any application for consent to sever will conform to the general development policies established by this Plan. ... If, in making other assessments, the Minister did allocate consideration paid for a farm on the basis that the principal residence was severable, he may, on the facts before him, have been right in doing so. ...

The above data indicates to us that appraisals formed the principal business of the company in the light of the considerations which should be made (ie degree of activity and degree of net profit). ... In the instant case, that question can be made even more specific: ‘Would the building have been constructed solely rental purposes, with no consideration given to its use to house the local office and (possibly) the head of office operations?’ ... In resolving the question of what is the principal business of a company, consideration has to be given to the following: (1) Degree of activity —Time spent by employees on various activities —Size of sources of income (2) Degree of net profit...* It was contended by the Minister that the above criteria were all inclusive, nor was it explained how “consideration” would be given, but it would be reasonable for the appellant to conclude that showing that the major portion of each item mentioned above rested with “construction” rather than “appraisal” would be satisfactory. ...

Under the terms of a contract dated March 1, 1971, the appellant sold the business of Henning Graphics to Magnaplate, for a net consideration of $26,000. ... It is not a question, therefore, of there being no consideration for the note, which might very well have been the case if the note has been expressed in the agreement to be given in payment of the goodwill, in which case the promise to pay being a promise to pay something for nothing, would constitute a nullum pactum by reason of total failure of consideration. ... To this extent the Board must consider that any challenge to the validity or the enforceability of the contract for sale to Magnaplate, based on lack of consideration, would be on very tenuous grounds. ...

In assessing the appellant for the 1965 and 1966 taxation years, the respondent took for granted the following facts: (a) During the 1965 and 1966 taxation years the appellant held the offices of president and manager of Lanrol Motors (1960) Ltd, which offices he had held since 1960, the year in which the said company was incorporated; (b) On April 19, 1960, the appellant signed an agreement with Lanrol Motors (1960) Ltd under which, in consideration of good services to be rendered by the appellant to the said company, the latter undertook to pay the appellant an annual bonus of 25 per cent of the company’s net profit before tax, over and above the salary paid to the appellant by reason of his employment, as evidenced by the said agreement concluded between the parties, a photocopy of which is attached hereto, to be equally authentic as though quoted /n extenso; (c) During the 1965 and 1966 taxation years the appellant received under the said agreement $7,905.28 and $7,501.60 bonuses respectively; Are the assessments justified? ... 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 de beemed, for the purpose 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 (i) as consideration or partial consideration for accepting the office or entering into the contract of employment, (ii) as remuneration or partial remuneration for services as an officer or under the contract of employment, or (iii) in consideration or partial consideration for covenant with reference to what the officer or employee is, or is not, to do before or after the termination of the employment. ...