Search - consideration

The critical portions therein as far as I am concerned read as follows: In consideration of your listing, Advertising, and Offering my property known as ART ISFELD FARM for sale or exchange I hereby give you sole and exclusive authority irrevocable until the expiration hereof to offer for sale or exchange my Said property at the price of $150,000 and upon the terms set out below or at such price and on such terms as may be acceptable to me. ...

The following schedule sets out the basic particulars of the property interest of the appellants: Property Year Appellants Appellants Karopa Hilltown 1974 John Crosier X 1974 Lucille E Crosier X 1974 Albin Trella X 1974 Elizabeth Trella X 1974 Victor Prousky X 1974 Morris Prousky X 1975 233482 Investments Limited X 1975 T Caravaggio & Son Limited X 1974 Manfred Feldt X 1974 Jean Mary Haschyc X 1974 Mendel Goldstein X 1974 Harry Teperman X 1974 David Irving Teperman X 1974 Burstein Bag Limited X 1975 Burstein Bag Limited X The following information directly relevant to the appellant Burstein is common to all appellants with respect to either one or the other parcel of real estate as indicated above: —The appellant held interest in two joint ventures known as Hilltown Developments Ltd (“Hilltown”) and Karopa Enterprises Ltd (“Karopa”); —The subject assets of these joint ventures were two pieces of raw land abutting each other in the Town of Oakville near the border line with the City of Mississauga; —The original participants and their respective percentage interests of Karopa were as follows: —Shortly after the purchase of the Karopa Property, Doug Roher and Lou Sherriff, the beneficial owners of K Roher Construction Limited and Lyrad Construction Limited respectively, which corporations in partnership owned Briar Developments, declared personal bankruptcy and thereafter Briar Developments ceased its participation in Karopa; Briar Developments (Roher & Sherriff) 29.7% Burstein Bag Limited 26.9% Crosier 1.4% Goldstein 1.7% McGuigan & Feldt 5.2% Prousky (Victor & Morris) 2.3% Trella (Elizabeth & Albin) 5.9% Warwick 11.2% Welta Wool.2% Feldstein 5% Flishlek.3% Rotsteins.3% Steiglan 6.6% Tomco 1.0% 233482 Investments Limited 7.7% 100.0% UUIJ I, IvVV, (“Karopa”) for $832,742.00 satisfied as follows: Cash $245,207.97 29.4% 1st Mortgage 301,867.03 36.2% 2nd Mortgage 50,750.00 6.1 % 3rd Mortgage 234,492.00 28.2% Taxes, etc 425.00.1 % $832,742.00 100.0% — During 1972, other participants of Karopa also encountered financial difficulties, and a reorganization occurred with the remaining participants taking over the vacated syndicate participation, the result being that the eventual composition of the Karopa joint venture was as follows: Burstein Bag Limited 35.720% T Caravaggio & Son Ltd 17.860% 233482 Investments Ltd 10.716% Jean Haschyc 5.706% Elizabeth Trella 5.706% Albin Trella 3.224% Joseph Rajca Jr 3.224% Mendel Goldstein 3.572% Manfred Feldt 3.572% Prousky (Victor & Morris) 3.556% John Crosier (husband & 1.786% Lucille Crosier wife) 1.786% Dorothy McGuigan 1.786% Beverly Young 1.786% 100.000 % Limited for a consideration of $1,901,664, realizing a gross profit of $1,068,922. ...

In this case considerations of fairness operated to exclude the evidence tendered by the respondent in an attempt to establish that the appellant, in his returns, understated revenues and overstated expenses. ...

When preparing the 1975 T-4 Return of Remuneration Paid, I elected to show the amounts paid and deducted as shown on the company’s records, which for Mr Jacob resulted in the following: Gross remuneration Aggregate of cheques paid up to date of receivership, 19 x $500 $ 9,500.00 Aggregate of gross pay plus vacation pay paid by me as receiver 2,849.56 $12,349.56 Deductions Aggregate amounts deducted from remuneration paid to him by me as receiver CPP 42.84 Unemployment insurance 22.44 Income tax 702.50 767.78 Additions made by the Department’s auditor and shown on revised T-4 issued at his request For CPP $ 77.66 For unemployment insurance 112.20 189.86 957.64 11,391.92 Department audit adjustment 189.86 Net amount actually received $11,581.78 Mr Jacob maintains that his income should have been reported for 1975 on a basis consistent with 1974, in which case it would have been shown on his T-4 slip as follows: Gross pay Aggregate of salary entitlement up to date of receivership, 19 x $625 $11,875.00 Aggregate of gross pay plus vacation pay paid by me as receiver 2,849.56 $14,724.56 Deductions CPP (including audit adjustments) 120.60 Unemployment insurance (including audit adjustments) 134.64 Total deducted by me as receiver $ 702.50 Amount claimed by Mr Jacob to have been deducted, but not shown as such in the company’s records 2,185.04 2,887.54 3,142.78 Net amount actually received by Mr Jacob $11,581.78 I trust this further explanation will enable you to give favorable consideration to Mr Jacob’s income tax position, as he appears to have been a victim of improper payroll administration by the Company prior to receivership. ...

Consideration was given by F.B.C. in mid-December of 1995 to filing an appeal but the file was neglected until March 1996 when the Applicant received a collection letter from Revenue Canada advising him that he owed income tax in the amount of $15,829.28. ...

Cases like the present involve difficult factual and legal considerations. ...

It is difficult to omprehend how “... the return or consideration or compensation for the ■se or retention by one person of a sum of money, belonging to, in a 311oquial sense, or owed to, another...” [4] can, in the absence of express tutory direction, be regarded as part of the “...capital cost to the tax- xyer of property …” within paragraph 20(1)(a). ...

Taking into consideration all of the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the Appellant has established on a balance of probabilities that she had a severe and prolonged mental and physical impairment and that her ability to perform the basic activity of daily living was markedly restricted substantially all of the time during the two taxation years in issue. ...

It was also suggested that serious consideration be given to calling all relevant witnesses to enable him to provide cogent evidence of his wife’s condition and that he consider retaining counsel since the issue appeared to be somewhat involved. ...

I would also add that the phrase from the Agreement (supra) “in full and final settlement of all issues raised in respect to Company’s notices dated 15 February 1989” would deserve consideration. ...