Search - consideration

Results 41 - 50 of 636 for consideration
EC decision

Emily L. Merritt v. Minister of National Revenue, [1940-41] CTC 226

It is immaterial, in my opinion, that the consideration received by the appellant for her shares happened to reach her directly from the Premier Company and not through the medium of the Security Company. ... Therefore, upon a consideration only of s. 19 (1) of the Act, my conclusion would be that the appellant was liable for the tax in question. ... In any event that is the conclusion which I have reached after an anxious consideration of those two sections of the Act. ...
EC decision

Wrights’ Canadian Ropes Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1945] CTC 177, [1941-1946] DTC 712

That the opinion of the Minister herein was not based on a consideration of the facts. 3. ... A copy of the contract was in the possession of the Commissioner when the assessments were made and was no doubt given consideration. ... While it is true that the decisions above referred to arose out of consideration of special acts, I believe that the principles there laid down are applicable to the present case. ...
EC decision

Alfred Curzon Dobell v. The Minister of National Revenue, [1950] CTC 379

Per The Chief Justice and Taschereau, J.: The renunciation of community and dower is a ‘‘consideration in money or money’s worth’’ within the meaning of s. 8(2) (a). ... It is not a debt under c. 8(2) (a) because it was not created ‘‘for full consideration in money or money’s worth ’ ’. ... After giving the matter my best consideration I have reached the conclusion that the appeal must be allowed and the assessments set aside. ...
EC decision

Roland Fortier v. Minister of National Revenue, [1970] CTC 108, 70 DTC 6090

Contending that Section 20(6) (g) applies he argues that the consideration was in part for the disposition of the depreciable property and in part for ‘‘something else’’, being the undepre- clable portion and that the sale price should be attributed on the same basis. ... Appellant’s counsel for his part argued that although it was the property itself which was sold and not two separate items, namely, depreciable property and non-depreciable property, the entire consideration could not be considered as having been paid for the portion of the value of the property which was depreciable since the total value of the property also included the value of the undepreciable portion which did not simply disappear into thin air, and that a portion of the price must be attributable to this component as being ‘‘something else’’, as if, for example, it had been land on which the building had been built. ... On this interpretation the consideration paid must be considered as having been for the purchase of depreciable property of the taxpayer, and since the prices paid of $53,884.82 for the building and $95,164.90 for the equipment exceed in each case the undepreciated capital cost to the taxpayer at the date of the sale of $33,384.82 and $69,364.90 respectively, determined by the application of the deeming provision of Section 20(6) (h) the capital cost allowances claimed in each case for 1962 and 1963 are subject to recapture. ...
EC decision

Seven-Up of Montreal Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1952] CTC 75, 52 DTC 1078

In the result, the appellant and Rocket, on February 6, 1947, entered into a bulk sales agreement (Ex. 1) by which for the expressed consideration of $30,699.61, Rocket sold, conveyed and transferred to the appellant: ‘“The ownership of and all its rights and title to the assets presently used by the vendor as a going concern under the name of Rocket Cola Co. ... On the second point, the evidence clearly establishes that for a consideration of $30,699.61, the appellant bought out all the assets of Rocket Cola Co. ... In argument, counsel for the appellant admitted that the Bulk Sales Agreement did, in fact, constitute a sale to the appellant of the assets set out therein; and also that the letter of February 10, 1947 (Ex. 2) constituted a resale by the appellant to Rocket of the assets therein mentioned for a consideration of one dollar. ...
EC decision

Balstone Farms Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1966] CTC 738, 66 DTC 5482

The shareholders paid no consideration for the shares issued to them. ... Diamond the consideration therefor being $15,000. The option expired on May 1, 1957 without being exercised. ... An extension of that option was granted by the appellant to May 30, 1960 for a consideration of $5,000. ...
EC decision

Wilson and Wilson Ltd. v. MNR, 60 DTC 1018, [1960] CTC 1 (Ex Ct)

The question for consideration, therefore, is the proper method to be used by the appellant in computing its income tax return. ... These considerations are equally applicable to the expenses made or incurred by the appellant for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business during the year (Section 12(1) (a)). ... But in my view, different considerations apply to the 1952 taxation year when Section 85B(l)(b) was not in effect. ...
EC decision

Stuyvesant-North Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1958] CTC 154

Sometimes there was no firm commitment but simply an option to purchase shares granted by the company to the appellant for some other consideration. ... What consideration was given by the appellant for this option does not appear. ... What consideration the appellant gave for these extensions does not appear, the documents merely stating that the extensions were made in consideration of $1 and other valuable consideration. ...
EC decision

Robert B. Curran v. Minister of National Revenue, [1957] CTC 384, 57 DTC 1270

Curran repeatedly assigned identical considerations to Brown’s overtures that he sever his connections with Imperial Oil and enter the service of either Federated Petroleums or Home Oil. ... For a consideration I leave the service of Imperial Oil, which was number one; number two was my being employed by one of Mr. ... At all events, I feel that such a consideration never was the immediate cause or causa causans of the agreement. ...
EC decision

Harold Griffith v. Minister of National Revenue, [1956] CTC 47, 56 DTC 1013

It seems to me that such is too remote for consideration. The case was very ably and exhaustively argued by Mr. Fleming, Q.C., of counsel for appellant, to which I have given my best consideration, but I am bound to conclude that the very able judgment of Mr. ...

Pages