Search - consideration

Québec (Sous-ministre du Revenu), 1999 CanLII 10635 (Court of Quebec)-- summary under Paragraph 6(1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 6- Subsection 6(1)- Paragraph 6(1)(a) taxable benefit when Government paid the law society fees of Crown attorney The taxpayer, who was a Crown attorney employed by the Quebec government, was found by Bossé J to have received a taxable benefit by virtue of his employer’s payment of his dues to the Quebec Bar, taking into consideration that the payment of such dues for him was not driven by the requirements of the contract of employment and resulted in his enrichment because this was an expense which he otherwise would have had to bear. ...

Canada, 2019 FCA 217-- summary under Section 8.1 Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Interpretation Act- Section 8.1 tax characterization not affected by securities law characterization In finding that amounts paid by mutual funds to an offshore financing entity were to be characterized as consideration for a financing service notwithstanding that, for securities law purposes, they were permitted on the basis that they were allowed as being payments for management fees, Woods JA stated (at para. 58): [T]he manner in which the arrangement would be interpreted for securities purposes does not affect the characterization of the legal relationships for taxation purposes. ...

The Queen, 2019 TCC 265-- summary under Land Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Fair Market Value- Land FMV of home potentially reduced by spouse continuing to live there After finding that s. 160 applied on the basis that ½ of the beneficial ownership of the family had been transferred for nominal consideration to the taxpayer by her husband, a tax debtor, MacPhee J also noted (at para. 34) that “it could be argued that the value of what was transferred by Mr. ...

The King, 2024 TCC 50-- summary under Subsection 306.1(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 306.1- Subsection 306.1(1) CRA was aware that the ancillary issue that was not explicitly raised was included in the objection TD, whose appeal was focused on the question of whether payments which it made to Aeroplan for purchase Aeroplan Miles were not subject to HST on the basis of being consideration for gift certificates, was not precluded from arguing that payments which it made to another bank (CIBC) in respect of Aeroplan Miles also enjoyed the same treatment (notwithstanding that such payments were not referenced in its objection) given that CRA had regarded this issue as being included in TD’s objection. ...

The King, 2025 TCC 16-- summary under Subsection 248(26) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(26) deeming of taxpayer liability to be an obligation Before going on to find that advances made to an employee as a performance award constituted loans and after paraphrasing s. 248(26), Ouimet J stated (at para. 35): Consequently, for a taxpayer who either becomes liable to repay money they borrowed or becomes liable to pay an amount (other than interest) as consideration for any property they acquired, the liability shall be considered to be an “obligation” for the purposes of applying the relevant provisions of the ITA. ...

Poelman J found (at para. 240) that the imputed credit rating of EEC (otherwise no higher than BB-) should not: allow consideration of implicit support to influence opinions about reasonable interest rates…. ... After having stated (at para. 264) a Gabco- derived test as to “whether no business would have contracted to pay that amount, having only its business considerations in mind and under the form of transaction pursuant to which the obligation was incurred,” Poelman J concluded (at para. 266) that the interest on the 2004 note (as well as the 2006 and 2007 notes) was fully deductible as having a reasonable amount notwithstanding that the rate exceeded “what the evidence shows would probably have been paid under a similar arm’s length transaction.” ...

The taxpayer and his sister Gaby then transferred all their Class F shares of Groupe Pomerlau Inc. under s. 85(1) to a holding company of the taxpayer (P Pom Inc.) in consideration for Class G shares with a deemed cost equal to their FMV (of $0.6 million, in the taxpayer’s case) but with a modest PUC, and for Class A shares with nominal ACB and PUC. ... The taxpayer then transferred all of his Class A shares of P Pom Inc. under s. 85(1) to a new personal holding company (Gestion Pierre Pomerlau Inc.) in consideration for Class A shares having an FMV of $20.4 million and nominal ACB and PUC, and Class C shares with a PUC and FMV of $1.994 million, with the Class C shares immediately being retracted by him. ...

., resort condos), which they had acquired in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, to the Appellant (which was a non-share corporation resident in Canada) in consideration for the Appellant transferring occupancy rights (a.k.a., resort points) to the vacation homes to them in perpetuity. ... In finding that these fees represented consideration for a single supply of a service, which was deemed to be made in Canada under s. 142(1)(g), D’Arcy J had stated: [P]aragraphs 142(1)(d) and 142(2)(d)…only apply if the single supply of a service relates solely to real property. ...

After determining to remit the s. 220(2.1) matter back to the minster for consideration, Woods JA then turned to the s. 220(3) decision and, after noting the position in 2013-0499421I7, stated (at paras. 40, 42, 45): The CRA’s view … is that the taxpayer relief provisions cannot affect a filing requirement which restricts the issuance of a dividend refund. ... … …I would remit [the s. 220(3) matter] to the Minister for full consideration and decision. … ...

Baker, none of the three trustees took into consideration … any aspect of Mr. ... That does not preclude benefits received where, in addition to the required connection between benefit and employment, there also may have been considerations extraneous to employment. ...