Search - consideration
Results 16151 - 16160 of 28817 for consideration
TCC
Shirley Butterfield v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2228, 84 DTC 1185
The assignment of receivables from a financially sound company to which receivables the borrowers gave up their rights and which were indeed transferred to the lender as legal consideration for the loans, is not only legal and in accordance with accepted accounting practices but can, in my opinion, be considered as a repayment of the loans within the meaning of section 8 of the Act. ...
TCC
Cecil McLeod v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2327, 84 DTC 1297
It is necessary to consider then the implications flowing from the decision in Moldowan v The Queen, [1977] CTC 310; 77 DTC 5213, where subsection 13(1) (now section 31) was given full consideration. ...
TCC
Abram Friesen v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2343, 84 DTC 1317
The resulting figure of $5,000 an acre cannot, in my opinion, be a realistic value of the property on V-Day, not only because no consideration was given to the distance of each lot to the Trans-Canada Highway and to the fact that the parcel of land was undeveloped rural land, but also because lot #20 did not even exist on December 31, 1971. ...
TCC
Josef Mairleitner v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2472, 84 DTC 1426
Even if this cannot affect the cash at the beginning this, however, affects the revenue for that year, and it must be taken in consideration accordingly. ...
TCC
DR Leslie Wilfred Knight v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2643, 84 DTC 1586
Now to find the adjusted cost base one must take into consideration provision 53(2)(a)(i). ...
TCC
Malcolm Gadway v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2648, 84 DTC 1559
The language of the statute is somewhat inapt to these technical considerations but its purpose is clear: and it is incumbent on the Court to see that the substance of a dispute is regarded and not its form. ...
TCC
Thomas Company (Niagara) LTD v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2733, [1984] DTC 1641
I see no reason why evidence of facts arising after Valuation Day should not be considered if they were reasonably and substantially predictable on that day and it is a reasonable expectation that the willing seller or purchaser referred to in the definition would have taken them into consideration. ...
TCC
Robert J Turnbull v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2800, 84 DTC 1720
However I have some doubt that in doing so with regard to Parcel “C” he gave any such serious thought or consideration to the usefulness or value of Parcel “D”. ...
TCC
M S Trojanowski v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2841, 84 DTC 1705
One need not go beyond comparing what was payable by Jaworski and the interest arising out of the mortgage on suite 327 and to have regard to the history of payment by Jaworski to the appellant to conclude that what transpired between them was not based on reasonable or creditable commercial landlord and tenant considerations and conduct. ...
TCC
Huguette Lemieux-Brazeau, Diane Charron-Brazeau v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2955, 84 DTC 1847
Gérald and Denis Brazeau purportedly transferred to their wives (the appellants) their undivided half of a property located in the township of Ma- sham (the co-owners were Denis and Gérald Brazeau), described as lot No 38A (part 38A), Range 2 (Exhibit A-l, clause 1.12; Exhibit A-2, clause 1.12): however, on September 10, 1979, four days before the covenant to modify the matrimonial regime and the deed of partition were executed, this same property was sold by Gérald and Denis Brazeau to Dame Ginette Boneau (Exhibit R-3); 3. on September 1, 1980, Dame Huguette Lemieux-Brazeau sold to her husband Gérald a property in the municipality of La Pêche that was the undivided half (the co-owner was Denis Brazeau) of a property described as lot No 39 (part 39) in the second range, R 2, township of Masham, for $1 and other consideration: this property had been transferred by Gérald Brazeau to his wife by the deed of partition, and its value, for the purposes of partition, had been set at $23,000 (Exhibit R-2) (Exhibit A-l, clause 1.14). ...