Search - consideration

Taken literally, the president’s testimony would leave little room for consideration of this appeal, but I am not prepared to deal with the issue so summarily since that aspect of it appears to me to be one which should require more complete review and opinion from counsel before it could form the basis for dismissal. ... In my view, that second hurdle need not be faced by the Court in the circumstances of this appeal — the existing contrast between the “loss” from the specified activities of the corporation and the “profit” from the other activities rules out any serious consideration of this appellant’s arguments. ...

In his examination in chief Mr Bradley testified that when the appellant acquired the term deposits there were several considerations determining the term. ... The other two considerations included interest rates and the date dividends would be anticipated to be paid up to Johnson & Johnson. ...

On or about September 13, 1978 a notice of objection was filed on behalf of Romano and the others requesting a re-assessment on the basis that the valuation day value of the property was accurate as reported by Romano and the others in filing their 1974 tax returns, that Emilia Gabriele, Gilda Gabriele and Elisa Latini rather than their respective spouses were the beneficial owners of their interests in the Property and, accordingly any capital gain resulting therefrom should be reported in their returns rather than the tax returns of their respective spouses and that the Department failed to take into consideration the entitlement of Romano and the others to claim a capital gain reserve under subparagraph 40(1)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). 30. ... The question, as I see it, is whether the sale of the property was a major consideration of the appellants and indeed a motivating factor at the time the property was acquired. ...

After taking into consideration outlays for taxes, subdivision costs, sales costs, promotion and administration, and after calculating the “In Wood” factor on the basis of an 8 per cent interest rate for a three-year period, we obtained a unit price of $2,760 per arpent. ... To claim now that he would, of his own free will, have agreed to sell this property at 2.7¢ a square foot is to fail to take into consideration all the special factors in this case. ...

Consequently, the value estimates should be used with care and consideration of assumptions and methodology employed herein. ... (In Cornforth v The Queen, [1982] CTC 45; 82 DTC 6058), Mr Justice Cattanach at pages 6066 and 55 respectively, goes on and deals with the facts of the case and makes the conclusion that there was no partnership.... about the bottom of the page (he) says: I am not satisfied on a consideration of all of the evidence that it was the intention of the plaintiff and his wife to enter into a partnership in the legal sense but on the contrary the natural and preponderant inference from the evidence is that no such intention was present to their minds. ...

It was determined to be for such services performed by the management personnel in the preceding year to be paid in the year and the fund was set up after careful consideration being given by the directors whether the business operations and returns of the prior year justified a fund in the amount determined to be paid in the next ensuing year. ... While the evidence would indicate that tax considerations were never far from the minds of those directing the appellant company, the same evidence would indicate that a pattern had been established in prior years, that the amount for 1976 was reasonable and that it had been earned by Mr Brazolot. ...

., 1977; BETWEEN: CHRIS CHRISTAKOS, of Halifax, in the County of Halifax and Province of Nova Scotia, hereinafter called the “Purchaser”, OF THE FIRST PART- and- JOHN KAMOULAKOS, of Halifax aforesaid, hereinafter called the “Vendor”, OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS the Parties hereto are equal partners in a business known as “Europa Restaurant”, which is located at 171 Main Street, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia: AND WHEREAS the Purchaser has agreed to purchase the interest of the Vendor of the said business for a price of FOUR THOUSAND ($4,000) DOLLARS, upon certain terms and conditions; NOW IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of FOUR THOUSAND ($4,000) DOLLARS and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. ...

In assessing the appellant for his 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 taxation years, the respondent relied, inter alia, on the following assumptions of facts: (a) During the 1971, 1972,1973 and 1974 taxation years, the appellant was carrying on various businesses; (b) During the 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 taxation years, the appellant derived and received income as outlined in Schedule A attached hereto from the carrying on of these various businesses; (c) When the appellant filed his income tax returns for the 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 taxation years, he failed to report the said income outlined in Schedule A; (d) On December 21,1971, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1971 for an amount of $1,000 from Lino Simaglia for protection services; (e) During the 1972, 1973 and 1974 taxation years, the appellant also received in each year an amount of $1,000 from Lino Simaglia for protection services; (f) On May 2, 1972, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1972 for an amount of $21,500 for a participation in an Easter Eggs operation; (g) On September 9, 1972, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1972 for an amount of $10,000 from a narcotic operation; (h) During his 1972 taxation year, the appellant undertook to commit an assault on behalf of Michel Cutone, and on July 11,1972, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1972 for an amount of $375 for such services; (i) On December 19,1973, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1973 for an amount of $500 from litigation settlement for Luigi Salavatore; (j) The appellant also earned an additional amount of income in 1973 of $3,700 from the litigation Settlement mentioned in subparagraph (i); (k) On July 23,1974, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1974 for an amount of $1,200 representing his share in a junket operation as a partner with Vincent Cotroni, Michel Pozza, Nicholas Di Iorio and Irving Goldstein; (l) On August 10, 1973, the appellant earned income for an amount of $2,000 from Vincent Cotroni as a profit from junket operations; (m) During his 1973 taxation year, the appellant settled a dispute for Giovanni Proetti and earned income for an amount of $500 in consideration of his services in that matter; (n) On December 13,1973, the appellant admitted having earned income in 1973 for an amount of $100,000 in the St-Martin shopping center operation; (o) During his 1973 taxation year, the appellant received an amount of $500 from Nick Maturo in consideration of his undertaking to commit an assault on a person living in Italy; (p) During the 1974 taxation year, the appellant earned income for an amount of $2,800 in the course of an Easter Eggs operation with Lino Simaglia; (q) During the 1974 taxation year, the appellant received an amount of $2,500 for having scared a person in order to settle a litigation on behalf of Abe Isaif: (r) All the above-mentioned admissions were made by the appellant in his business premises. ...

Grantaun closed the transaction on December 15,1972, purchasing the property for a total consideration in the amount of $180,068.95, with the appellant making a cash contribution according to her 25% interest in Grantaun. ... I suggest it is not relevant to this consideration because the taxpayer did not know, but it is instructive to look to see that, in fact, this was not a real estate trader in a speculative sense, at least on the face of the documentation or the facts submitted by the Minister. ...

The question is whether the Officer’s interpretation was reasonable, and this in turn requires an assessment of the types of considerations that the Officer applied, based on a review of the reasons in light of the record. [40] The following extract from the Decision Letter sets out the line of analysis followed by the Officer: I have reviewed all information available and upon review, I am not satisfied that your experience with University of British Columbia meets the definition of work under Section R73(2) of the Regulations nor the definition of qualifying Canadian work experience pursuant to MI3 Item 19(4)(d) of the Ministerial Instructions. ... Second, having reviewed the newly submitted documents, I am not persuaded that their consideration would be sufficient to make the Officer’s decision unreasonable. ...