Search - consideration

Results 6101 - 6110 of 28818 for consideration

19 June 1990 Internal T.I. 74757 F - Transfer of Property to a Wholly-owned Canadian Subsidiary

Bryson 957-2110 File No. 7-4757 SUBJECT: Subsection 15(1) of the Act Transfer of property to a wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary We are writing in response to your letter of February 22, 1990 in which you requested our interpretation of the application of subsection 15(1) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") to the following situation. (1) A Corporation transfers property to its wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary. (2) The Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary jointly elect under subsection 85(1) of the Act. (3) The consideration for the transfer is to be a common share of the wholly-owned subsidiary and non-share consideration equal to the adjusted cost base of the property transferred. (4) The value of the share is issued to the parent on the exchange exceeds the difference between the fair market value of the transferred property and the boot received on the exchange. (5) There is only one class of shares issued by the wholly-owned subsidiary, there are no V-day value considerations and the transaction is not tax motivated. As stated in IT-432R and IT-291R it is the Department's position that where a shareholder transfers property to a corporation, the consideration and the fair market value of the share issued. If the fair market value of the total consideration received exceeds the fair market value of the property transferred, the excess is included in the income of the shareholder pursuant to subsection 15(1) of the Act. ...

19 June 1990 Income Tax Severed Letter AC74757 - Transfer of Property to a Wholly-owned Canadian Subsidiary

Bryson FILE 7-4757 SUBJECT: Subsection 15(1) of the Act Transfer of property to a wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary We are writing in response to your letter of February 22, 1990 in which you requested our interpretation of the application of subsection 15(1) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) to the following situation. (1) A Corporation transfers property to its wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary. (2) The Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary jointly elect under subsection 85(1) of the Act. (3) The consideration for the transfer is to be a common share of the wholly-owned subsidiary and non-share consideration equal to the adjusted cost base of the property transferred. (4) The value of the share is issued to the parent on the exchange exceeds the difference between the fair market value of the transferred property and the boot received on the exchange. (5) There is only one class of shares issued by the wholly-owned subsidiary, there are no V-day value considerations and the transaction is not tax motivated. As stated in IT-432R and IT-291R it is the Department's position that where a shareholder transfers property to a corporation, the consideration and the fair market value of the share issued. If the fair market value of the total consideration received exceeds the fair market value of the property transferred, the excess is included in the income of the shareholder pursuant to subsection 15(1) of the Act. ...

Dym v. The Queen, 79 DTC 5362, [1979] CTC 442 (FCTD)

I directed the Registry to advise the applicants that the draft of the consent judgment was not acceptable for implementation in the form it was drafted and that consideration would be given to a revised draft of the consent judgment which contained within its four corners the terms of the judgment sought without resort to extrinsic material. ... If perchance paragraph 2 of the submitted draft which states that the appeal for the 1974 taxation year is allowed in part” had gone on to state as I consider to be obligatory “that in all other respects the appeal is dismissed” I may have given consideration to granting a judgment so worded but the draft judgment was not so worded. ...

Kusch v. The Queen, 84 DTC 6117, [1984] CTC 108 (FCTD)

He applied an agricultural yardstick only and rejected any consideration of development potential. ... Having regard to this and the other considerations alluded to, his valuation of $579,000 for the subject land, according to the component breakdown set out hereunder, must therefore stand: NW 6-37-4W3 — 160 acres at $1,500 each $240,000 SW 6-37-4-W3 — 137.5 acres at $1,500 each $206,000 NW 7-37-4W3 — 137.27 acres at $968 each $133,000 $579,000 I find therefore that the plaintiff has met the onus of establishing that the Minister’s assessment is incorrect. ...

Joseph v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1229 [at at 3649], 2010 TCC 350 (Informal Procedure)

$CDN Per Unit Record Date Payment Date Other Taxable Income Return of Capital Redemption Proceeds Total Distribution Paid Mar. 31, 2008 Apr. 15, 2008 $ 0.50000 $- $- $ 0.50000 Jun. 30, 2008 Jul. 15, 2008 $ 2.50000 $- $- $ 2.50000 Consideration pursuant to the Arrangement $ 103.50343 $ 0.94215 $ 0.01442 $ 104.46000 The "Other Taxable Income" amount is the portion of the distributions that is to be included in the taxable income of unitholders. ... (Please refer to the section entitled "Taxation of Holders Resident in Canada- Certain Canadian Federal Income Tax Considerations" under the Circular for a more detailed discussion.) ...

Gascho Farms Ltd. v. The Queen, 97 DTC 808, [1997] 1 CTC 2092 (TCC)

As consideration for the sale of the Assets, the purchaser gave back a first mortgage in the amount of $212,000.00, paid the sum of $150,000.00, subject to the usual adjustments, by certified cheque and conveyed the purchaser’s property located at 412 Carene Court, Waterloo, Ontario, hereinafter called “the Property”, to the Appellant. ... Moreover, if one were to add a reasonable figure for repairs and maintenance, it is highly unlikely that a profit could have been realized not even taking into consideration capital cost allowance. ...

Ronald Michael Kornelow v. Minister of National Revenue, 91 DTC 431, [1991] 1 CTC 2403 (TCC)

Some of these show that these transactions occurred in the chronological order indicated: on June 30, 1978, in consideration of the Bank of Montreal dealing with K & L, the appellant and his wife guaranteed K & L debts and liabilities up to $35,000; on July 26,1979, K & L executed a promissory note in favour of the Bank of Montreal in the sum of $35,000; on September 18, 1978, K & L entered into a security agreement with the Bank of Montreal whereby as security for the payment of existing and future indebtedness it granted to the bank a security interest in its existing and future assets; on September 20, 1978, in consideration of the Bank of Montreal dealing with K & L, the appellant and his wife guaranteed K & L debts and liabilities up to $15,000; on July 17, 1978, Eileen Nolan, the mother-in-law of the appellant, borrowed $40,000 from the Royal Trust Corporation of Canada which was secured by a mortgage on her home and the appellant guaranteed the repayment of the money secured by the mortgage and in February 1986 the appellant and his wife borrowed $65,000 from the Guaranty Trust Company and this loan was secured by a mortgage on their home. ...

Canada Forgings Ltd. v. The Queen, 83 DTC 5110, [1983] CTC 94 (FCTD)

In consideration therefor Canada Forgings paid to each of them the sum of $325,000. ... This is made clear in paragraph 7A of the takeover bid circular which Toromont sent out to all shareholders (page 98) wherein it is stated: In addition Toromont and Messrs Fraser and Peacock have agreed that Messrs Fraser and Peacock will surrender their options to purchase 50,000 common shares for a consideration equal to $17.00 per share less the exercise price of the option. ...

Canada v. Doubinin, 2005 DTC 5624, 2005 FCA 298

The Tax Court Judge said "It was a genuine gift and not given with the expectation of a receiving a material benefit or any other type of consideration from PPF. ... Friedberg, 92 DTC 6031 (FCA), and specifically the quote from the reasons of Linden J.A. on what constitutes a gift as follows: a voluntary transfer of property owned by a donor to a donee, in return for which no benefit or consideration flows to the donor (see Heald, J. in The Queen v. ...

Le Soleil Limitée v. MNR, 73 DTC 5093, [1973] CTC 91 (FCA)

As such a person, for a consideration, it agreed to put an advertisement on behalf of the advertiser in its (the appellant’s) newspaper so that, when a member of the public got the newspaper, the advertiser’s message would, it might be hoped, be communicated to him. ... However, in this Court, another view of the matter was put forward, which, counsel for the Minister agrees, is open for consideration in this Court on the basis on which the trial was conducted in the Trial Division. ...

You are here