Search - consideration

She assigned that debt to 943 for $10.00 and other good and valuable consideration. ...

This item alone had represented a capital outlay by the respondent of $3,942,000 Canadian ($2,850,000 U.S.) as the purchase consideration. ...

Thus, the fluctuation in the "principal amount" of the debt, as that term is defined in the Income Tax Act, is mandated by the contractual terms governing the debt. [49]            The Crown also relies upon subsection 248(26) of the Income Tax Act, which reads as follows: 248 (26) For greater certainty, where at any time a person or partnership (in this subsection referred to as the "debtor") becomes liable to repay money borrowed by the debtor or becomes liable to pay an amount (other than interest) (a) as consideration for any property acquired by the debtor or services rendered to the debtor, or (b) that is deductible in computing the debtor's income, for the purposes of applying the provisions of this Act relating to the treatment of the debtor in respect of the liability, the liability shall be considered to be an obligation, issued at that time by the debtor, that has a principal amount at that time equal to the amount of the liability at that time. 248 (26) Il est entendu que, dans le cas où une personne ou une société de personnes (appelées "débiteur" au présent paragraphe) devient obligée, à un moment donné, de rembourser de l'argent qu'elle a emprunté ou de payer un montant (sauf des intérêts) soit en contrepartie d'un bien qu'elle a acquis ou de services qui lui ont été rendus, soit qui est déductible dans le calcul de son revenu, l'obligation est considérée, pour l'application des dispositions de la présente loi concernant le traitement du débiteur par rapport à l'obligation, comme une dette émise par le débiteur à ce moment dont le principal, à ce moment, est égal au montant alors à rembourser ou à payer. [50]            I am unable to conclude that subsection 248(26) compels the conclusion that the "principal amount" of the debentures on October 15, 1999 was necessarily the same as its "principal amount" on October 16, 1989. ...

This prescribed amount is determined by the formula A x B, where A is the amount of the individual’s LRBs commuted in connection with the transfer, as determined by subsection 8517(4), and B is a present value factor listed in the Regulations and corresponding to the individual’s age at the time of the transfer. [10]            Essentially, LRBs are retirement benefits provided to the member until the member’s death (subsection 8500(1) of the Regulations) that must be “payable in equal periodic amounts” (paragraph 8503(2)(a)). [11]            Subparagraph 8503(2)(a)(ii) provides an exception to take indexation increases into consideration: LRBs do not need to be paid in equal periodic amounts where a plan “provides for periodic cost-of-living adjustments to be made to the benefits”. ...

The analysis indicated by Swain, Andrews and Turpin is not, in my respectful opinion, the consecutive consideration of (1) whether, as here for example, marital status is a ground analogous to those enumerated in subsection 15(1) for some good reason not relevant to the particular grievance, e.g., the historic disadvantages of unwed mothers, and then (2) whether or not the distinction in issue treats different taxpayers in a discriminatory fashion on the basis of that analogous ground. ...

Secondly, it must examine certain accepted anomalies to see whether they fairly cover the objects under consideration. ...

Now the word "railway" imports locomotion on or over "rails," furnishing a service within fixed and rigid limits: and precise language would be necessary to bring within its scope transportation operations by means of power and vehicles unknown when the legislation was first enacted, with a service of a highly mobile character and involving different considerations of public policy. ...

Therefore it draws into the consideration of the meaning of "reserve" for purposes of Part I.3, the particular regime established in respect of accounting for reserves under Part I of the Act. ...

Duff J. for the majority concluded that the levy in question was a tax because it was: (1) enforceable by law; (2) imposed under the authority of the legislature; (3) levied by a public body; and (4) intended for a public purpose.    16                                The first, third and fourth criteria pertain to the nature of the levy, while the second criterion involves a consideration of the manner in which the levy was imposed.  ...

At page 702 (C.T.C. 391, D.T.C. 6183) I concluded: In the 27 years since Ransom was decided, the Act has undergone extensive revisions which touch on the issues under consideration. ...