Search - consideration

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. ...

In finding this approach to be insufficiently nuanced, the majority stated, that in determining the arm’s length consideration: “one should include all of the objective circumstances of the actual … mine” and the “objective circumstances of the copper concentrate market as at February 2007” (para. 179) “it would be appropriate to exclude any considerations that are the product of C.M.P.L.’s non-arm’s length relationship with G.I.A.G. and the broader Glencore Group” which “would include whatever attitude or policy C.M.P.L. had formed about the issue of risk when selling to G.I.A.G” (para. 180) “C.M.P.L. … could legitimately adopt a more conservative approach to risk so long as it was commercially rational to do so, and it is what an independent party dealing at arm’s length might reasonably be expected to have done” (para. 181) “the possibility of a range of arm’s length outcomes, each of which would be sufficient to answer the statutory test, is supported by authority” (para. 183) ...

., Civil Appeal Nos. 8733-8734 of 2018, 2 March 202, Supreme Court of India-- summary under Article 12 Summary Under Tax Topics- Treaties- Income Tax Conventions- Article 12 consideration for software paid by Indian resellers was not royalties for Canadian (and other) Treaty purposes At issue were numerous joined appeals involving the application of withholding tax by the Commissioner of consideration paid by residents of India to non-residents under four broad categories of licensing and sale transactions described below and involving the application of 18 income tax conventions (listed at para. 40, and described at para. 41 as being relevantly “substantially similar”) including that with Canada: Category 1: Computer software purchased directly by an end-user, resident in India, from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer (for example, a non-exclusive licence to use Samsung software on the end-user’s Samsung mobile device, with a prohibition against making the software available to any other person, or copying it other than for backup purposes). ...

The appellants acquiring such FMO units from TOM in consideration for issuing $161M in promissory notes. ... The units of FMO being repurchased by FMO for nominal consideration. The appellants had full (FMV) cost for their FMO units when acquired in step 2, and the capital gains distributions did not reduce the ACB of their units by virtue of s. 53(2)(h)(i.1)(A) and (B)((I). ...

The proposal contemplated that the co-owners would transfer their interests on a s. 85(1) rollover basis to respective Newcos formed by them in consideration for the mortgage assumption and for voting and non-voting shares, followed by a sale of their Newco voting shares to an Abacus subsidiary (NH Properties), representing a significant portion of the sale price. ... Real estate counsel for the vendors negotiated that these transactions would all occur in one closing, and the consideration received by the vendors for their Newco voting shares was mostly in the form of promissory notes given by NH Properties, that were paid to them by direction out of the Bentall sales proceeds. ...

The taxpayers acquired such FMO units from TOM in consideration for issuing $161M in promissory notes. ... The units of FMO were repurchased by FMO for nominal consideration. The appellants had full (FMV) cost for their FMO units when acquired in steps 2 and 4, and the capital gains distribution in step 6 did not reduce the ACB of their units by virtue of s. 53(2)(h)(i.1)(A) and (B)(I). ...

The taxpayers acquired such FMO units from TOM in consideration for issuing $161M in promissory notes. ... The units of FMO were repurchased by FMO for nominal consideration. The appellants had full (FMV) cost for their FMO units when acquired in steps 2 and 4, and the capital gains distribution in step 6 did not reduce the ACB of their units by virtue of s. 53(2)(h)(i.1)(A) and (B)(I). ...