Search - consideration

As in the previous offer, the consideration to be provided is cash or BPY units (with the aggregate consideration fixed at approximately 67% units and 33% cash) – except that (again as before) Canadian-resident BPO shareholders can choose to receive exchangeable units of an indirect subsidiary Ontario LP ("Exchange LP") of BPY in order to elect under s. 97(2).   ... An additional feature not present in the previous Offer is that BPO common shareholders also can elect to have their common shares redeemed by BPO itself for BPY units or cash, giving rise to a deemed dividend of over half the value of the consideration. ...

1 October 2014- 9:43am Reversing an earlier position, CRA now acknowledges that s. 95(2)(a)(ii)(D) applies in an indirect use situation Email this Content An immediate LLC subsidiary of Canco (NR1) sold a subsidiary engaged in an active business (NR6) to a great-grandchild (NR4) in consideration for Note1 of NR4, and then sold Note1 to its immediate subsidiary (NR2) in consideration for Note2 of NR2. ... Furthermore, s. 95(2)(a)(ii)(D)(II) also was not available as "NR2 acquired Note1 in consideration for the issuance of Note2…[so that] the property acquired was not shares of another foreign affiliate. ...

Plan of Arrangement in consideration solely for Centerra shares, with the acquired shares contributed immediately to a new holding subsidiary of Centerra. As there is no nominal cash or other non-share consideration, the Thompson Creek shareholders are not required to file an election form in order to receive rollover treatment- so that Centerra will have lower basis in the acquired shares. The U.S. tax disclosure indicates that the exchange is expected to be a “B” reorg (which requires that the sole consideration be shares). ...

R & S then appealed to the Tax Court with a view to convincing the Court that the allocation of consideration between partnership-interest and non-partnership interest consideration set out on the (T2059) election form did not reflect the actual agreed allocation. ... Graham J considered that there was a crucial distinction between the T2059’s agreed amounts, which could not be altered by the Minister, and the allocation of the consideration, which was a purely factual matter which was merely recorded on the T2059, and which either CRA or the taxpayer were free to challenge in the Tax Court as not according with the actual facts. ...

24 August 2017- 1:36am CRA considers the HST questions of who has acquired a service or property, and who is the recipient of a supply, to be cognate Email this Content The definition in the ETA of the “recipient” of a supply refers to the person who, under the agreement for a supply, is liable to pay the consideration therefor. CRA indicated that it did not consider someone to be the recipient of a supply merely because that someone was contractually liable to pay the consideration for the supply. ... The [recipient] definition refers to ‘consideration for the supply’. However, in the present case, the [Lessor] has not acquired any supply of software licences, and is therefore not entitled to claim any ITC for the tax paid for them. ...

It seemed likely, but unclear, to CRA, based on the limited information provided to it, that such charges were consideration for the service of the Funds in redeeming the units and, therefore, were exempted under para. (d) of the financial services definition as being consideration for the “transfer of ownership” of financial instruments (i.e., it apparently was sufficient that the unitholders ceased to be owners and that it did not matter that there was no new owner of the units). If, on the other hand, the redemption fees were consideration payable to the Fund manager for its service of “arranging for” the “transfer of ownership” of the units, CRA indicated that this created the possibility that such redemption fees were part of a single supply of taxable management services made by the manager (pursuant to a management agreement between it and the unitholders) for periodic management fees. ...

22 April 2021- 11:04pm CRA indicates that comparable sales of used MURCs for s. 191(3) purposes may reflect embedded GST/HST Email this Content In the context of an inquiry on determining the fair market value of a new apartment building (or other ”MURC”) when there is a self-supply at the time of substantial completion and first occupancy, CRA noted that where the cap rate used in applying the income approach to valuing the MURC was derived from comparable sales of occupied MURCs, such comparables may reflect “GST/HST that may be imbedded in the consideration for a supply as a result of the GST/HST having been imposed at an earlier time.” On the other hand, “where the consideration of a taxable supply of a residential complex is used as a comparable in a valuation methodology, the GST/HST imposed on that supply, even where the supply was ‘GST/HST included’, is excluded from the consideration.” ...

Upon its renewal, the policy is transferred to the employee for no consideration under s. 148(7), whereupon the employee starts paying the annual premiums. Given that the key employee has been including the annual premium in income as a s. 6(1)(a) benefit, does a further benefit arise on such transfer of the policy to the individual for no consideration? CRA indicated that s. 6(1) “may apply to include in the income of the individual the amount by which the fair market value of the policy exceeds any actual consideration paid by the individual for the policy.” ...