Search - consideration

In my view, the consideration of all the circumstances quite rightfully requires the consideration of any remuneration paid to the party in respect of whom the issue of non-arm’s length arises as well, i.e., remuneration paid by the Appellant to the Payer in this matter, notwithstanding the Appellant’s earlier objection that matters and evidence dealing with Edward Huntley’s earlier decision be struck ...   [46]          Firstly, as stated above, the Appellant nor the Payer have provided any proof or documentation of same, for the Court’s consideration. ...

  [30]          Turning, then, to a consideration of the Respondent’s arguments, counsel for the Respondent referred the Court to Dataco Utility Services Ltd. v. ... Counsel for the Respondent correctly reviewed the elements of a contract of service [29] (control, ownership of tools, chance of profit and risk of loss, and integration) as well as the additional consideration of the intent of the parties ... While I agree with counsel that that might have been the fiscally clever thing to do, the reality is that people are often motivated by many other considerations. ...

The fact that one party may be impecunious does not automatically determine the application in favour of the other party who will not ultimately be able to collect damages, although it may be a relevant consideration. [10] [References omitted ... The public interest is an important consideration in deciding whether to postpone the suspension ... The consideration of harm to public confidence is admissible in the present case, precisely because it is the public's confidence in the CRA to oversee registered charities that is at issue. ...

Appendix 1 also records certain transfers into the two accounts which, upon consideration, were removed from the deposits ... He took folio #13399 into consideration because the Appellant made the deposits into that account and signed the cheques drawn on it despite the fact that her son Guy had a power of attorney. ... Since the auditor testified that he took them into consideration in his calculations, and that they were added to the deposits, the total undeposited DSLs for the year 1997, in the amount of $48,786, must be subtracted from the unreported income amount of $42,117. ...

The document entitled "Covenant not to Proceed" between the Kardas and the Royal Bank states: [8]             In consideration of the sum of Sixty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($67,600.00) and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which the undersigned hereby acknowledges, and in consideration of the terms of the Minutes of Settlement executed by the parties, Royal Bank of Canada for itself, its successors and assigns, covenants and agrees that save and except for claims and causes of action arising under or pursuant to the aforesaid Minutes of Settlement, it will not commence or continue any claim, action or other proceeding against William P. ...

At the end of argument counsel for the Respondent was not adverse to this Court ordering an accounting of the Appellant and this Court thinks that that would be a proper course of action. [77]     The Court orders that the Respondent make an accounting of the Appellant for the years in issue, showing the amounts that the Minister has calculated that the Appellant owes, showing all credits to which the Appellant was entitled during the period in issue and giving unto the Appellant sufficient information to allow the taxpayer to reasonably be able to conclude what amounts were allegedly owing, what amounts of interest were being charged, what amounts the Appellant paid to the Minister by way of credit and consequently enable him to conclude the amount still owing and the basis for it. [78]     That leaves for consideration the validity of the assessments for the years 1994 and 1995. ... In hearing an appeal under this provision, the Court is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in conducting a hearing for the purposes of the Act, and can deal with it as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and the consideration of fairness permit. ... This, the Court cannot do. [103] That leaves for consideration the more substantial and difficult question of whether or not the Appellant's Charter rights have been violated and whether or not there is an appropriate remedy, if such a violation is found. [104] Respondent's counsel argued that the central question before the Court is whether or not the Appellant was an Indian under the Indian Act during the years in question. ...

The problem is that these considerations do not connect the appellant's employment income to any particular reserve. ... Therefore, these considerations do not help to locate his employment income. [35]     Though later the Court's decision was refined somewhat by the following statement: In close cases, such as Folster, special circumstances of the employment may assist in determining the situs of the employment income. ... This is a very difficult and perhaps circuitous issue when consideration is given to who funds reserves. ...

The appellants ask this Court to vacate these assessments. [2] Subsection 160(1) reads as follows: SECTION 160: Tax liability re property transferred not at arm's length. (1) Where a person has, on or after May 1, 1951, transferred property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, to (a) the person's spouse or a person who has since become the person's spouse, (b) a person who was under 18 years of age, or (c) a person with whom the person was not dealing at arm's length, the following rules apply: (d) the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay a part of the transferor's tax under this Part for each taxation year equal to the amount by which the tax for the year is greater than it would have been if it were not for the operation of sections 74.1 to 75.1 of this Act and section 74 of the Income Tax Act, chapter 148 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, in respect of any income from, or gain from the disposition of, the property so transferred or property substituted therefor, and (e) the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay under this Act an amount equal to the lesser of (i) the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at the time it was transferred exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given for the property, and (ii) the total of all amounts each of which is an amount that the transferor is liable to pay under this Act in or in respect of the taxation year in which the property was transferred or any preceding taxation year, but nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to limit the liability of the transferor under any other provision of this Act. [3] Gilles Ringuette is the father of Caroline Ringuette who is married to Douglas Young. On January 13, 1995, Gilles Ringuette sold a property to the appellants for a consideration of $300,000. ... The fair market value of the property at the time it was transferred to the appellants did not exceed the consideration given for that property. ...

The fact is that the Appellant never owned or operated any kind of business at all during the taxation period under consideration. ... He summarized the governing principles to be applied at paragraph 65: a)         Knowledge of a false statement can be imputed by wilful blindness. b)         The concept of wilful blindness can be applied to gross negligence penalties pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Act. . . . c)         In determining wilful blindness, consideration must be given to the education and experience of the taxpayer. d)         To find wilful blindness there must be a need or a suspicion for an inquiry. e)         Circumstances that would indicate a need for an inquiry prior to filing. . . include the following: i)          the magnitude of the advantage or omission; ii)         the blatantness of the false statement and how readily detectable it is; iii)        the lack of acknowledgment by the tax preparer who prepared the return in the return itself; iv)        unusual requests made by the tax preparer; v)         the tax preparer being previously unknown to the taxpayer; vi)        incomprehensible explanations by the tax preparer; vii)       whether others engaged the tax preparer or warned against doing so, or the taxpayer himself or herself expresses concern about telling others. f)         The final requirement for wilful blindness is that the taxpayer makes no inquiry of the tax preparer to understand the return, nor makes any inquiry of a third party, nor the CRA itself. [36]         This is certainly not an exhaustive list. [37]         The Appellant is an intelligent, sophisticated and articulate person who has engaged in post‑secondary studies in commerce and pre‑med. ... FA convinced the taxpayers to become involved in a scam identical to the one here under consideration. ...

IN CONSIDERATION of their respective obligations set out below, the parties hereto agree as follows.   ...   …   “Gross Revenues”   means all revenues, receipts, monies and other considerations of whatever nature earned or received by the Proponent, whether in cash, or by way of benefit, advantage, or concession, and without deductions of any nature, net of any returns or discounts actually credited and any sales, excise, ad valorem or similar taxes paid but without deduction for bad debts or doubtful accounts, as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, applied on a consistent basis. ... The contribution was an advance of funds in consideration of a promise to repay ...