Search - consideration

.), c.1) 9. (1) Subject to this Part, a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from a business or property is his profit therefrom for the year. 18. (1) In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or property no deduction shall be made in respect of (a) an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business or property; (9) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, (a) in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from a business or property (other than income from a business computed in accordance with the method authorized by subsection 28(1)), no deduction shall be made in respect of an outlay or expense to the extent that it can reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred (i) as consideration for services to be rendered after the end of the year, (ii) as, on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of, interest, taxes..., rent or royalty in respect of a period after the end of the year, or (iii) as consideration for insurance in respect of a period after the end of the year....; (b) such portion of each outlay or expense made or incurred as would, but for paragraph (a), have been deductible in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year shall be deductible in computing his income for the subsequent year to which it can reasonably be considered to relate;... ...

Exhibit R-5 is headed “Full and Final Release” and states in part: IN CONSIDERATION of the payment of the sum of NINETEEN THOUSAND SIXTY THREE DOLLARS AND TWENTY EIGHT CENTS ($19,063.28) inclusive of costs which is directed to my solicitors, Cockburn, Foster, Townsend, Graham & Associates, In Trust. ... AND IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that the terms of this settlement are fully understood, that the amount stated herein is the sole consideration for this release and that the said sum is accepted voluntarily for the purpose of making a full and final compromise, adjustment and settlement of all claims for injuries, losses and damages resulting or to result from the said accident. 8 The final document signed by the Appellant is entitled a “Release, Direction and Authorization” (Exhibit R-6). ...

</p>] where Rand J. defined interest broadly to include “the return or consideration or compensation for the use or retention by one person of a sum of money, belonging to, in a colloquial sense, or owed to another” This fairly broad definition has since been limited or more narrowly defined. ... </p>] It is further covenanted and agreed, in and for the consideration aforesaid, as a condition hereof, that until the said principal sum with interest thereon is fully paid as aforesaid, if the total gross annual income accruing to the mortgagor in any calendar year during the continuance of this mortgage from the said lands and buildings thereon or other facilities now on or which may hereafter be erected or be situated on the said lands, shall exceed the sum of $135,000,00 during any such calendar year... then the said mortgagor will pay to the mortgagees, within 121 days after the end of each calendar year, a sum equal to 10% of the amount by which the said total gross annual income shall exceed the said sum of $135,000.00, any such percentage payment to be in addition to the payments of interest and principal hereinafter contained... ...

.), at page 5157: While it has frequently been held that a Court should not, after considering all the expert and other evidence, merely adopt a figure somewhere between the figure sought by the contending parties, it has also been held that the Court may, when it does not find the evidence of any expert completely satisfying or conclusive, nor any comparable especially apt, form its own opinion of valuation, provided this is always based on the careful consideration of all the conflicting evidence. ... </em>(1996), 96 D.T.C. 1594 (T.C.C.), in which Judge Mogan voiced concerns regarding the reliability of the Appellants' experts after questioning their valuation methods and noting that they failed to take into account certain pertinent considerations and some conflicts of interest. ...

Counsel contended that it was clear from the evidence that those lots had been purchased in order to be resold at a profit or at least that one of the appellant's considerations at the time the lots were acquired was the possibility of reselling them at a profit. 14 As mentioned above, the point at issue is whether the profit realized on disposition of the lot in Boucherville must be characterized as a capital gain or as business income. 15 The Income Tax Act (the “Act”) defines “business” in section 248 as follows: “business” includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatever and, except for the purposes of paragraph 18(2)(c), an adventure or concern in the nature of trade but does not include an office or employment; 16 In order to characterize the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade, it is important to verify what the taxpayer's intention was at the time of the acquisition of the property that gave rise to the profit and to analyze the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction in order to determine the true intention.Furthermore, it is not sufficient to verify the primary intention; it must also be determined whether there was a secondary intention at the time of acquisition. ... The considerations prompting the transaction may be of such a business nature as to invest it with the character of an adventure in the nature of trade even without any intention of making a profit on the sale of the purchased commodity. 20 However, this will not necessarily be the case if the evidence shows that the purchaser's intention at the time of acquisition was not to resell the land at a profit and that there were other motivations for engaging in such a transaction. ...

As suggested by that articulation, the standard of review applicable to the merits of the Decision, involving consideration of arguments that the Delegate erred in applying the test under s 204.1(4) of the ITA, is reasonableness (see Connolly v Canada (National Revenue), 2019 FCA 161 [Connolly] at para 56). [23] The Respondent also raises the following procedural issues: The Respondent submits that the style of cause in this application should be amended to name the Attorney General of Canada [AGC], rather than CRA, as the Respondent; and The Respondent submits that there is evidence in the Applicant’s Record that was not before the Delegate when making the Decision, which therefore should not be considered by the Court in this application. ... The Resource Officer’s affidavit states that the supporting documents attached to the Spouse’s affidavit were not submitted by the Applicant in support of his request for waiver of the Part X.1 tax and were not reviewed by the Resource Officer in preparing his recommendation. [27] However, the Respondent’s Memorandum of Fact and Law acknowledges that the statement in the Resource Officer’s affidavit is partially in error, as certain of the documents attached to the Spouse’s Affidavit had indeed been submitted by the Applicant and were taken into consideration during the waiver review process. ...

He also consulted The Sun Trust Company and after due consideration came to the conclusion that the property would make a sound long-term investment and recommended its purchase to the Administrative Committee of the Company. ... Speaking of the risk in effecting the said purchase, the witness testified that, although one expert whom he consulted thought that the price which the Company was ready to pay was too high, nevertheless, after careful consideration, he felt at ease in recommending its purchase (Transcript, pp. 26 annd 29). ...

A little consideration shows therefore that, in the case of a single special payment, being the amount that was recommended by the actuary, the amount that could be deducted under old Section 76 for any year was one-tenth of the amount of the payment or the amount of the payment less amounts deductible for previous years, whichever was the lesser, and that the deduction was only permitted in computing incomes for the ten years commencing with the year during which the special payment was made. ... Before coming to the consideration of this question, it is well to review briefly the basic scheme of Part I of the Income Tax Act, in so far as it is relevant for, in my view, the meaning in subsection (2) of Section 26 of the 1958 Act of the words “amounts that were deductible... under section 76... in computing the income of the taxpayer for taxation years previous to the 1958 taxation year’’ can only be properly appreciated in the light of that scheme. ...

In fact, however, it was not adopted by the taxpayer for 1956 but, with no explanation as to what considerations led to it other than that the agent considered that the Ken Steeves case required it, the appellant’s computation for 1957 was prepared on the accrual basis. ... He stated that he took into account a number of considerations including payments actually received in January and February of the following year and he reached the conclusion that a proper reserve would consist of the whole amount of certain old accounts for which notes had been obtained plus two-thirds of the amount of the rest of the accounts outstanding at the end of the year which contained unpaid items more than 60 days old at the end of the year. ...

Oliveira having been a mere 36 days late in filing his applications. [25] In rejecting counsel’s request, I can do no better than to cite the authorities relied on by Justice Lafleur at the end of her reasons in Pietrovito v The Queen, 2017 TCC 119: [86] Finally, here are my last comments: no consideration of fairness or equity can be of assistance to the Appellant as this Court is a statutory court. As explained in Odebala‑Fregene, supra [2015 TCC 44]: 22 Factoring in the nature of the specialized statutory scheme of the Act and that this Court is a statutory Court, considerations of fairness do not apply. ...