Search - consideration

The question of vesting must, in my opinion, depend upon a full and careful consideration of the specific provisions of the settlement agreement. ...

A useful consideration of the basis for computing such a reserve may be found in the judgment of this Board re Makis Construction Limited v MNR, [19721 CTC 2082; 72 DTC 1101. ...

I see no difference in the basic situation in the Steer case and that now before me for consideration, for whether the appellant guaranteed a bank loan for Hatton, or whether it used its own funds for the purpose of assisting him by way of a loan to reduce his indebtedness to his creditors, seems immaterial. ...

The point at issue is whether or not the sum of $24,000 included in the consideration for the sale of the assets of Neuls Construction to Neuls Construction Ltd, on the 1st, or as of the 1st, of January, 1971, is, first of all, a correct figure for goodwill; and secondly, or perhaps I should reverse the order, is there any goodwill that attaches to such a transaction? ...

I have checked the evidence, and I have taken into consideration the totality of the evidence and the circumstances in each case in arriving at my conclusion. ...

This letter, filed as Exhibit A-4, specifies among other things that: (1) the purchase price was to be reduced by the sum of $5,000; (2) all adjustments are to remain as of December 15, 1968; (3) it was mutually agreed to postpone the closing of the transaction to Friday, December 27, 1968, at which time Mr Brodie, acting for Peer Investments Limited, would be able to close the said transaction; (4) the purchasers now accept the statement of expenses as shown and that there would be no recourse against the vendors for any other discrepancies related thereto. 12 According to Exhibit A-4, these stipulations were accepted the same day by Peer Investments Limited under the signature of Bernard Karp. 13 The appellant testified that all the interested persons, except Mr Sullivan, were anxious to close the transaction before the end of 1968; that the documents were locked in a vault and that Mr Sullivan refused to close the transaction before the end of the year; that on December 21 and 22 he met with Mr Karp but the latter was unable to obtain the document; that all the necessary documents to effectuate the transfer of the property had been prepared and sent to the vendor's solicitor before the end of 1968; and that the purchaser was credited for 17 days of rent in December 1968 in the amount of $4,219.84. 14 The appellant also stated that the income and expenses statement having put the purchaser in the position of owner, he had to declare the rents as income in his 1968 income tax return, which rental income was accepted by the Minister. 15 He then filed an affidavit which was signed by Mr Sullivan as trustee to transfer to Peer Investments Limited the property under discussion for the consideration of $1. ...

Appellant's exhibit A- 1 is a release from Burnett to Aegis of any and all claims he might have against the Aegis company and/or Mr MacMillan, Mr Sanda, Mr Saxby or any one of them, and in consideration of the payment of the said sum, Burnett was to resign as a director and officer of Aegis and agreed to transfer any shares in the said company which “I presently have or to which I may be entitled now or in the future to the said A R MacMillan or to his nominee or nominees and to do all things necessary to effect such transfer.” ...

The Vendor hereby sells free and clear, and the Purchaser hereby purchases, all the issued and outstanding shares of the Company and also the loans and the security attached thereto from the Vendor and Charter Credit Corporation to the Company for the price and sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other considerations hereinafter referred to. ...

Taking into consideration the adjustments which he was entitled to recover at date of sale of the house, I find that he paid $1,507.11 in respect of the mortgage and $283.49 for utilities. 19 In accordance with the decision in a similar situation in Hastie v Minister of National Revenue, [1972] C.T.C. 2383, 72 D.T.C. 1335, by Maurice Boisvert, Esq, QC of the former Tax Appeal Board, which was upheld, on appeal by the respondent, by Mr Justice Walsh of the Federal Court of Canada, reported at[1974] C.T.C. 131, 74 D.T.C. 6114, I am of the opinion that the appellant Gordon Singer is entitled to deduct from his income for the taxation year 1968 a further sum of $2,716.68 and from his 1969 taxation year a further sum of $1,790.60. 20 Accordingly, the appeals of Gordon Singer for the taxation years 1968 and 1969 are allowed in part on the basis that the taxable income for the said years be reduced by $2,716.68 and $1,790.60 respectively, and the matter referred back to the respondent for reassessment accordingly. ...

There was no suggestion made by the respondent of sinister motives or of intentional diversion of company funds, and indeed such a consideration might have required action by the taxing authorities under an entirely different section of the Act. ...