Search - consideration

The total consideration turned out to be $642,000. This sum was broken down among four items as follows: $432,000, $163,000, $3,000 and $44,000. ... By the same approach the respondent’s expert put all the maintainable earnings at a multiple of five times after, in his opinion, making the allowance for the considerable risk with respect to subsidies as well as to all other considerations. ...

Counsel for the appellant argued that in deciding this appeal, two main points should be taken into consideration: (1) in case of corporate residence, a company resides where its real business is carried on and where the central management and control actually abides; (2) it is purely a question of fact to establish where that is (De Beers). ... Counsel for the appellant then argued that according to the evidence adduced, there can be no question (1) that the appellant is resident in Nassau, and (2) it is not resident in Canada; that Mr Doyle was not a shareholder but a director and, as such, was not bound to comply with directions given by the shareholders; that the responsibility of the directors and officials of the company is to the company itself and their duties are controlled by the rules and constitution of the company; that, in the case at bar, the facts proven show that the management and control of the company were exercised and given to a substantial degree de jure and de facto within Nassau by its Bahamian directors; that even if Mr Doyle’s first steps to incorporate an off-shore company were taken in Canada, this cannot be taken into consideration because the bulk of the appellant’s business was carried out in Nassau. ...

If hindsight based on the company’s subsequent earnings is an unacceptable consideration in evaluating its shares as at December 31, 1971, it seems to me that foresight or expectancy based on the potential of the company, the plans of the company, groundwork for increased earnings already laid down but not reflected in the company’s books, or any factors which existed and were demonstrable as having existed on Valuation Day and which could affect favourably or unfavourably the company’s normal projection of future earnings should, in my opinion, also be taken into account in arriving at a fair market value of the shares at that date. In other words, I do not believe that the simple application of a mathematical evaluation formula without taking into account pertinent considerations other than financial statements will always result in a true and fair market value of the shares. ...

In view of these considerations regarding the shareholders of Mars Finance Inc, the Board concludes that it is impossible to form a related group capable of controlling Mars Finance Inc, and that it is therefore impossible to satisfy the first condition of paragraph 39(4)(e) of the 1971 Act and paragraph 256(1)(e) of the 1972 Act. 6.2.2 Second and Third Conditions Since the third condition cannot be satisfied, and all three conditions must be met, the Board concludes that Mars Finance Inc and Les Immeubles Perron Ltée are not associated corporations. 6.3 Are Mars Finance Inc and J-Euclide Perron Ltée associated? ... Because of the above considerations, the other corporations cannot be deemed to be associated either. 7. ...

The fact that consideration thereof is one lump-sum payment does not alter its character in any way.” ... The fact that the consideration was. paid in a lump sum and not by instalments does not alter the nature of the transaction. ...

Howard failed to withdraw the over contribution “within a reasonable timeframe” was reached without any consideration of the impact the pandemic and her absence from Canada had and without any consideration given to the fact that she did withdraw the excess immediately upon becoming aware of it. [26] The decision-maker accepted that the excess contribution arose because of the advice Ms. ...

The Relief Procedures have separate considerations for first-time over-contributors and repeat over-contributors. ... However such evidence was not before the Officer and therefore, I can hardly fault the Officer for not taking it into consideration. ...

None of Bonjour’s shareholders received any cash consideration. This transaction was an arm’s length transaction, the purchasers being unknown to the vendors. ... Thus the prime consideration, where there is a dispute about a system of accounting is, in the first place, whether it is appropriate to the business to which it is applied and tells the truth about the taxpayer’s income position and, if that condition is satisfied, whether there is any prohibition in the governing income tax law against its use.... ...

On his part, and in consideration of the plaintiff putting up this money, Milton Sorokin undertook to arrange for financing by loans secured by first and second mortgages, to arrange for the construction of the apartment building and, on completion, to take over the management of the building and ensure that it was occupied to the extent that the rental revenue would meet all commitments. ... If it is considered as an investment, the principal amount of which was to be recouped from the proceeds of the project then the consideration for making that investment is counter-balanced by Milton Sorokin’s contribution of his experience in arranging for the financing and construction of the building and in all other respects the parties to the arrangement also considered their respective contributions as equal. ...

Thus, apart entirely from any other consideration, I have the view that these defendants cannot succeed in these appeals, carrying as they do the onus of disproving the validity of the Minister’s assessments. ... A matter of a few weeks later, they optioned the corner lots to Pacific Petroleums for commercial purposes, they gave another option to Bridge City Construction for commercial purposes, and finally, after a partial rezoning was accomplished, they sold a portion of the property for commercial purposes. it seems clear to me, after a consideration of all of the above facts and circumstances, that the defendants had in their mind at the moment of purchase the possibility of reselling as an operating motivation for the acquisition of subject property. in my view, all of the circumstances surrounding this transaction together with the subsequent conduct of the defendants negate the expressed intentions of the defendants in their evidence at trial. ...