Search - consideration

The reason for the mistake is simply not a consideration in the application of the section. ...

CRA originally denied input tax credit claims of CFI for the HST that was charged to it by the originators on the prepaid rent payments on the grounds that such payments were consideration for a financial service but, after some time, ultimately reversed that position and confirmed the ITC denials on the basis that CFI had not satisfied the documentary requirements of s. 169(4) and the Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations (the “Regulations”). ...

He assigned the other ½ of his shares to her in consideration for a promissory note of approximately $1M, and elected out of the application of s. 73(1), so that he realized a capital gain of approximately $1M and her ACB increased by this amount. ...

In disagreeing with this result and with the view of the Court of Quebec that TA s. 54 (the equivalent of ITA s. 7(3)(a) established that the stock option rules (contained in TA s. 49 et seq.) constituted a “complete code” so that TA s. 422 (equivalent to ITA s. 69(1)(b)) did not apply to deem the “value of the consideration for the disposition” received by the taxpayer to be equal to the options’ fair market value of $3M, rather than the nil proceeds in fact received, Cournoyer JCA had stated (as quoted in translation at para. 2): [T]he very broad formulation of the rule set out in section 422 suggests that the legislature’s purpose was to attribute to any disposition of property by a person a value equal to the fair market value of the property for the purposes of computation of income. ...

He went on to indicate (at para. 55) that, to determine the character of the single supply, it was necessary to determine “which element caused the payment of the consideration,” and then stated (at para. 57) that in light of the importance of the professional services provided by Dr. ...

Canada, 2023 SCC 16-- summary under Subsection 111(5) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 111- Subsection 111(5) rationale of s. 111(5) addresses where there is a change in the identity of those behind a corporation The non-capital losses of $90M, and other tax attributes (the “Tax Attributes”) of the taxpayer, were effectively sold to arm’s length investors pursuant to transactions under which: The existing shareholders of the taxpayer exchanged their shares for shares of a “Newco” under a Plan of Arrangement A venture capital company facilitator (Matco) entered into an “Investment Agreement” with the taxpayer and Newco pursuant to which Matco (principally in consideration for $3M in cash) acquired a debenture of the taxpayer that was convertible into shares representing 79% of its equity shares but only 35% of its voting shares. ...

Now that MPP was an empty shell, Madison and Vanac transferred respective portfolios of rental properties to MPP in consideration for the assumption of liabilities and for the issuance of a mixture of Class B voting shares and Class C non-voting shares (with the same attributes other than being generally non-voting) so that Madison and Vanac collectively held (and in equal proportions, after giving effect to some catch-up transactions to equalize those holdings) 46.6% of the voting rights and 92.8% of the equity of MPP. ...

In order for two companies (“Madison” and “Vanac,” which dealt with each other and MPP at arm’s length) to access those losses and shelter gains and income from portfolios of rental properties, transactions were implemented, beginning in October 1997 which, in general outline, included the following: The common shares of the existing shareholders were exchanged for preferred shares and Class B voting common shares; Through a series of transactions, those shareholders’ preferred shares were effectively replaced by shares of a subsidiary of MPP to which it had transferred its mining assets (with that subsidiary then being amalgamated with third-party mining company), so that MPP was now an empty shell; and Madison and Vanac transferred respective portfolios of rental properties to MPP in consideration for the assumption of liabilities and for the issuance of a mixture of Class B voting shares and Class C non-voting shares (with the same attributes other than being generally non-voting) so that Madison and Vanac collectively held (and in equal proportions, after giving effect to some catch-up transactions to equalize those holdings) 46.6% of the voting rights and 92.8% of the equity of MPP. ...

Corco purchased all of the appellant’s shares in consideration for issuing a $600,000 demand promissory note. ...

In addition, there is a geographical consideration in that the Foreign Interchange Service was provided to a non-resident merchant acquirer while expenses to redeem the points are incurred by RBC in Canada. … [E]xpenses incurred by RBC in the redemption of loyalty reward points were inextricably linked and an integral component of the Appellant’s agreement to extend credit pursuant to the Cardholder Agreement. ...