Search - consideration

At issue is the reasonableness of the consideration that was paid by the Appellant to the affiliates for ranitidine. The Minister of National Revenue says that the consideration was not reasonable in the circumstances, and has assessed accordingly. ...

Many members of his family had made it their duty to gather stamps for him; with time and the help of his family and friends, he had accumulated so many that he considered himself an amateur stamp collector. [6]      In parallel with this hobby, he was interested in tracing his ancestors to build his family tree; when he learned that some of his ancestors were of Amerindian origin, he became interested in that community and wanted to help them. [7]      Due to a lack of time and interest, and with his fondness for stamps waning, he apparently then decided to help the Fondation Amérindienne Tecumseh by donating part of his collection to the foundation in three different donations during 1989, 1990 and 1991. [8]      In consideration for the donations to the Fondation Amérindienne Tecumseh, he received three receipts in the amounts of $2,089.70, $5,189.81 and $6,870. ... However, a rich amateur without any knowledge on the matter can raise the bidding at the auction considerably because of pride, boastfulness, specific emotions, etc., which as a result vitiates or distorts the FMV of property. [41]     To better understand that reality, it should be noted that the FMV is generally the price that a buyer free from any constraint, specific emotion or need is prepared to pay to acquire the property from its owner equally free from any pressure or influence of any kind. [42]     The Respondent argued that, first, a donation implies that the donor has to be the owner of the object at the time of the donation, otherwise the donation cannot have taken place, implying that the Appellant did not own the stamps at in respect of which the three receipts were issued. [43]     Although the evidence of ownership of the stamps was not absolute or beyond a reasonable doubt, on the balance of probabilities, the stamps were indeed the property of the Appellant. [44]     Some came from his own inventory, but the number had not been established; the large majority came from Zimo, a business operated by a co-worker who was also apparently a friend. [45]     For any transfer of ownership of property to take place, there has to be consent, specific identification of the object of the transfer and finally payment in consideration. ...

This method would deny a claim for ITCs. [36]     The key phrase here is "fair and reasonable", which comes directly from the wording in subsection 141.01(5), which states: (5)         The methods used by a person in a fiscal year to determine             (a)         the extent to which properties or services are acquired, imported or brought into a participating province by the person for the purpose of making taxable supplies for consideration or for other purposes, and             (b)         the extent to which the consumption or use of properties or services is for the purpose of making taxable supplies for consideration or for other purposes, shall be fair and reasonable and shall be used consistently by the person throughout the year. ...

M.N.R. [1] He said there that to be disallowed as unreasonable, an expense must be such that no reasonable business person would have contracted to pay the amount for the work done, or services rendered, having only business considerations in mind. ... The total additional increment to be allowed as expenses, therefore, for 1999, subject to my later consideration of motor vehicle expenses and home office expense, is $634.85. [17]     In the year 2000 there were three items in dispute over and above the motor vehicle and office in the home expenses. ...

No exhaustive list has been compiled and perhaps no exhaustive list can be compiled of considerations which are relevant in determining that question, nor can strict rules be laid down as to the relative weight which the various considerations should carry in particular cases. ...

A single consideration paid for a multiple supply must be apportioned among the separate supplies. ... Whether the services are rendered under a single contract, or for a single undivided consideration, are matters to be considered but are not conclusive. ...

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]_______________________________________________________________ Appeal heard on June 30, 2004, at Montréal, Quebec Before: The Honourable Judge Alain Tardif Appearances: Agent for the Appellant: Yvon Nazon Counsel for the Respondent: Agathe Cavanagh_______________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT           The appeal filed pursuant to the Employment Insurance Act, regarding a determination made by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister"), dated December 10, 2002, is allowed, and the decision of the Minister is amended to take into consideration the fact that Mr. ... The work performed by Bernard Jules was carried out in accordance with a contract concluded between his corporation and the Appellant. [35]     For all of these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the Minister is amended to take into consideration the fact that Mr. ...

Westinghouse may well have acted unilaterally without appropriate consideration of the Appellant's rights under employment law. ... Ignoring the issue of the payment being past consideration already owing and thereby not being in respect of the loss of employment, the payment would fall under the definition of a retiring allowance. ...

Canada and / or Klehini Resources, or any other Canadian-controlled private corporation that was a small business corporation; f)           the Appellant was not owed a debt by Canadian-controlled private corporation that was a small business corporation that became a bad debt at the end of the 1994 taxation year; g)          the Appellant did not incur a debt for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or a property or as consideration for the disposition of capital property to a person which whom the Appellant was dealing at arm's length; h)          the Appellant did not make an election pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Act with respect to a debt or share(s); i)           the Appellant was not a shareholder of W.T.F. ... His alternative submission that he was entitled, in respect of the loss, to an allowable business investment loss under section 3 and the above noted provisions, succeeds. [64]       The appeal is allowed with costs. [4]      The first submission of counsel for the Respondent refers to subsection 50(1) of the Act which reads as follows: 50.(1) Debts established to be bad debts and shares of bankrupt corporation.- For the purposes of this subdivision, where (a) a debt owing to a taxpayer at the end of a taxation year (other than a debt owing to the taxpayer in respect of the disposition of personal-use property) is established by the taxpayer to have become a bad debt in the year, or (b) a share (other than a share received by a taxpayer as consideration in respect of the disposition of personal-use property) of the capital stock of a corporation is owned by the taxpayer at the end of a taxation year and (i) the corporation has during the year become a bankrupt (within the meaning of subsection 128(3)), (ii) the corporation is a corporation referred to in section 6 of the Winding-up Act that is insolvent (within the meaning of that Act) and in respect of which a winding-up order under the Act has been made in the year, or (iii) at the end of the year, (A) the corporation is insolvent, (B) neither the corporation nor a corporation controlled by it carries on business, (C) the fair market value of the share is nil, and (D) it is reasonable to expect that the corporation will be dissolved or wound up and will not commence to carry on business and the taxpayer elects in the taxpayer's return of income for the year to have this subsection apply in respect of the debt or the share, as the case may be, the taxpayer shall be deemed to have disposed of the debt or the share, as the case may be, at the end of the year for proceeds equal to nil and to have reacquired it immediately after the end of the year at a cost equal to nil. [5]      Counsel argues that since no election was made (and this was established) the Appellant cannot claim an ABIL. ...

  [11]     The basic contracts signed by the parties are a prime consideration but do not establish a presumption nor are they definitely determinative of the issue. ... The parties have freely chosen to label their relationship as one of an independent contractor and as mentioned, that fact deserves consideration although not in itself conclusive. ...