Search - consideration

In making and confirming the notices of reassessment dated June 22, 2000, the Minister assumed, in particular, the following facts:   (a)        the case arises from an internal investigation of certain employees at the Jonquière Tax Centre who had established a scheme to provide certain persons with fraudulent tax refunds in consideration of a commission based on a percentage of the said refunds;   (b)        on June 5, 1995, the appellant received a total tax refund of $12,260.05 for the 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 taxation years as a result of reassessments dated May 30, 1995;   (c)        that same day, June 5, 1995, the appellant deposited a net amount of $4,260.05 at the Saint-François Xavier Caisse populaire, Rivière-du-Moulin service centre, after withdrawing a cash amount of $8,000;   (d)        the notices of reassessment dated May 30, 1995, for the 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 taxation years established that the appellant was the father of two children and, among other things, allowed the equivalent-to-married and dependent tax credits in computing non-refundable tax credits;   (e)        the notices of reassessment dated May 30, 1995, for the 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 taxation years established that the appellant was the father of two children and, among other things, allowed a child tax credit in computing federal credits;   (f)         the notice of reassessment dated May 30, 1995, for the 1993 taxation year established that the appellant was the father of one child and allowed an equivalent-to-married credit in computing non-refundable tax credits;   (g)        the appellant told the Minister's investigators that he was not married and had never had a child during the taxation years in issue;   (h)        the appellant told the Minister's investigators that he had met Mario Boucher at a bar in the region and that he had repaired Mr. ...   [16]    Article 2849 of the Civil Code of Quebec, which appears in the book on evidence, reads as follows:   Presumptions which are not established by law are left to the discretion of the court which shall take only serious, precise and concordant presumptions into consideration. ...

The appellant may adduce facts constituting a prima facie case which remains unanswered; but in considering whether this has been done it is important not to forget, if it be so, that the facts are, in a special degree if not exclusively, within the appellant's cognizance; although this last is a consideration which, for obvious reasons, must not be pressed too far. [29]          I do not read that passage as permitting the Crown to plead anything it likes as an assumption, whether or not it is uniquely within the Crown's knowledge, and expect the taxpayer to disprove it. ... Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (S.A.); ex parte Hooper ((1926) 37 C.L.R. 368 at 373):                 An "assessment" is not a piece of paper: it is an official act or operation; it is the Commissioner's ascertainment, on consideration of all relevant circumstances, including sometimes his own opinion, of the amount of tax chargeable to a given taxpayer. ...

The Respondent shall have its costs. [37]          Although it is not relevant to the determination of this motion, it may well be that the Appellant is not without a remedy in this case in light of the fact that other years have been successfully appealed and the same issues will be under consideration. And upon consideration of those appeals, appropriate application might be sought under the fairness package. ...

The schedule accompanying the letter from Chrysler Credit to Cariboo set out the breakdown of the $204,124.52 and it included the sum of $55,010.13 which is substantially the amount assessed against the appellants under section 323 of the Excise Tax Act. [28]          Ultimately Chrysler Credit was paid the amount remaining in the lawyers' trust account. [29]          I begin the analysis of the liability of the appellants under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act with a consideration of their respective positions in the company. ... He was a part owner. [30]          I turn then to a consideration of whether the appellants have exercised the degree of care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in comparable circumstances. [31]          There have been numerous cases involving directors' liability under section 323 of the Excise Tax Act and section 227.1 of the Income Tax Act. ...

In assessing the appellant, the Minister relied on the following findings and assumptions of fact: (a)            the appellant is a GST registrant; (b)            the appellant was audited under the Excise Tax Act; (c)            during the period from June 1, 1995, to December 31, 1997, the appellant operated a catering business; (d)            during the audit, it was found that supplies made to persons and/or businesses working in the field of day care in schools were not taxed by the appellant; (e)            in light of this fact, the respondent's representative reviewed the supplies made to the persons and/or businesses referred to in subparagraph (d); (f)             an examination of the available documents, including the invoices issued, revealed the following facts:-                the consideration paid by the customer was based on a per-person or per-serving charge;-                the meals were prepared to the customer's specification;-                the meals were delivered to the place designated by the customer;-                the appellant was known (advertised) as a caterer; (g)            following discussions with the appellant, and taking the above-mentioned facts into account, the respondent's representative determined that the supplies made to the persons and/or businesses referred to in subparagraph (d) were exempt supplies of catering services; (h)            after reviewing the data entered in the accounting records, the respondent's representative determined the taxes that should have been collected and the ITCs that should have been claimed, as shown in greater detail in the attached schedule; (i)             the respondent's representative thus found that the appellant had not remitted $4,789.07 in GST and had wrongfully claimed $6,479.17 in ITCs in relation to exempt supplies, as can be seen from the following table: PERIOD GROUND(S) AMOUNT 95-06-01 to 95-12-31 Uncollected GST $1,732.47 ITCs claimed on purchases for the production of exempt supplies $1,313.13 96-01-01 to 96-12-31 Uncollected GST $1,061.68 ITCs claimed on purchases for the production of exempt supplies $3,310.74 97-01-01 to 97-12-31 Uncollected GST $1,994.92 ITCs claimed on purchases for the production of exempt supplies $1,855.30 SCHEDULE COMPUTATION OF TAXES TO BE REMITTED 01-01-98 to 30-09-98 01-01-97 to 31-12-97 01-01-96 to 31-12-96 01-09-94 to 31-12-95 TOTAL QST AND GST DISCREPANCY TOTAL SALES $147,262 $206,693 $208,095 $326,813 ELEM. ... When the food or beverages are supplied to the customer it is in a form that can be consumed either immediately or after it is warmed; ·                     The consideration paid by the customer is based on a per person or per serving charge; ·                     The food or beverages are delivered to or on behalf of the customer; ·                     The food or beverages are supplied with some or all of the necessary amenities for either serving or consuming the food or beverages. [28]          The circumstances of this case are consistent with those guidelines. ...

I shall come back to the matter of this form shortly. [12]          In all there are 17 vehicles on which the Appellant did not collect GST because it considered them to be export sales: in 1996 there were two vehicles which the Appellant claims were exported to the United States and two to Germany, having a total consideration of US$29,800, which translates to C$40,528; in 1997, three vehicles to the United States aggregating US$28,500 or C$39,330; in 1998, ten vehicles to the United States for an aggregate consideration of US$56,300 or C$83,324. ...

Lortie took into consideration all sorts of assumptions with negative impact on the value of the immovables at issue; I refer in particular to the following: (1)      the lack of interest in the site; (2)      the possibility of a very high water table; (3)      problem soil: clay and sand; (4)      the servitude prohibiting access; (5)      the prohibitive infrastructure costs; (6)      the difficulty of developing due to the fact that there were a number of owners, thus making it difficult to achieve any consensus on establishing and respecting infrastructure; (7)      the numerous by-law restrictions. [44]     There was no basis in the evidence adduced for attributing these defects, faults or shortcomings to the appellant's lots. ... Determining actual value involves research that must lead to a conclusion that must stem from the consideration of all available elements. ...

The tests mentioned in cases in other courts are of course helpful but other factors should also be emphasized, including the timeliness of the motion to amend or withdraw, the extent to which the proposed amendments would delay the expeditious trial of the matter, the extent to which a position take originally by one party has led another party to follow a course of action in the litigation which it would be difficult or impossible to alter and whether the amendments sought will facilitate the court's consideration of the true substance of the dispute on its merits. ... Ultimately it boils down to a consideration of simple fairness, common sense and the interest that the courts have that justice be done. [13]     This passage was quoted with approval in The Queen v. ...

THIS CONTRACT IS MADE: BETWEEN LESSEE                                     Produits forestiers Alliance inc.                                     200 De Quen Street                                     Dolbeau-Mistassini, Quebec                                     G8M 1M1 AND LESSOR                                     Forestiers BerMan inc.                                     1913 Sacré-Coeur Boulevard                                     Dolbeau, Quebec                                     G8L 2A5                                     Machine number: 2280                                     Representative(s): Emmanuel Labrecque 1)     In consideration of the payments referred to hereunder, the LESSOR agrees to render personal services to the LESSEE using the movable described below, in accordance with the following terms and conditions. ... Contract signed in duplicate this 05-05-99           .________________________            ______________________ LESSOR                                                           LESSEE THIS CONTRACT IS MADE: BETWEEN LESSEE                                     Produits forestiers Alliance inc.                                     200 De Quen Street                                     Dolbeau-Mistassini, Quebec                                     G8L 5M8 AND LESSOR                                     Forestiers BerMan inc.                                     1913 Sacré-Coeur Boulevard                                     Dolbeau, Quebec                                     G8L 2A5                                     Machine number: 2703                                     Representative(s): Emmanuel Labrecque 1)     In consideration of the payments referred to hereunder, the LESSOR agrees to render personal services to the LESSEE using the movable described below, in accordance with the following terms and conditions. ...

The parties shall modify the child support payment and Section 7 expenses, if applicable, in accordance with updated disclosure.   13.2     In consideration for a retroactive claim for child and spousal support, the Husband shall provide the Wife with a $5,000.00 lump sum settlement, which sum combines retroactive child and spousal support arising since the date of separation. ... Full consideration must be given to these last two factors (see Payne, at p. 263). ...