Search - consideration

  [6]               The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows:   252.1 (2) Accommodation rebate for tour packages-- If (a) a non-resident person is the recipient of a supply made by a registrant of a tour package that includes short-term accommodation or camping accommodation, (b) the tour package is acquired by the person otherwise than for supply in the ordinary course of a business of the person of making such supplies, and (c) the accommodation is made available to a non-resident individual, the Minister shall, subject to subsection (8) and section 252.2, pay a rebate to the person equal to the tax paid by the person in respect of the accommodation. 252.1 (8) Rebate paid by registrant-- If (a) a registrant makes a supply of a tour package that includes short-term accommodation or camping accommodation to a non-resident recipient who either is an individual or is acquiring the tour package for use in the course of a business of the recipient or for supply in the ordinary course of a business of the recipient of making supplies of tour packages, (b) the registrant pays to, or credits in favour of, the recipient an amount on account of a rebate under subsection (2) or (3) to which the recipient would be entitled in respect of the accommodation if the recipient had paid the tax in respect of the supply and had satisfied the conditions of section 252.2, (c) the amount paid or credited is equal to the amount that would be determined in respect of the supply under paragraph (5)(b), and (d) in the case of a rebate under subsection (2), (i) payment of the consideration for the supply is made at a place outside Canada at which the registrant, or an agent of the registrant, is conducting business, or (ii) if the supply of the tour package includes the short-term accommodation or camping accommodation and also includes other property or services (other than meals or property or services that are provided or rendered by the person who provides the accommodation and in connection with it), a deposit of at least 20% of the total consideration for the tour package is paid (A) by the recipient to the registrant at least 14 days before the first day on which any short-term accommodation, or camping accommodation, included in the tour package is made available under the agreement for the supply of the tour package, and (B) by means of a credit card or charge card issued by, or a cheque, draft or other bill of exchange drawn on an account outside Canada with, a non-resident institution that is a bank, cooperative credit society, trust company or similar institution, the registrant may claim a deduction under subsection 234(2) in respect of the amount paid or credited, and the recipient is not entitled to any rebate or to any refund or remission of tax in respect of the accommodation. 234 (2) Deduction for rebate in respect of supplies to non-residents-- Where, in the circumstances described in subsection 252(3), 252.1(8) or 252.4(2) or (4), a registrant pays to, or credits in favour of, a person an amount on account of a rebate referred to therein, the registrant may deduct the amount in determining the net tax of the registrant for (a) the reporting period of the registrant that includes the particular day that is the later of the last day on which any tax to which the rebate relates became payable and the day on which the amount is paid or credited; or (b) any subsequent reporting period of the registrant for which a return is filed within one year after the particular day ...

  [8]      The second consideration is that it was only after the appeal was called for hearing that the appellant made the request. ... However, there are other important considerations to be taken into account as well in considering adjournment requests ...

(h)        Thus, effective August 1, 2004, all supplies made by the Appellant in the course of the commercial activities of his business during the period in issue constituted taxable supplies for which a 7% tax on the value of the consideration for the supply was payable by the Appellant's recipients, and the Appellant had to collect this tax and remit it to the Respondent's representatives.     ...   [9]      The arguments based on ignorance, incapacity related to medical problems, or other causes that elicit great sympathy for the Appellant, are not relevant and should not be taken into consideration in determining the merits of the assessment ...

The Defendant engages himself to pay to the Ministère du Revenu the security of one month of alimentary pension; 5−         The amount of the alimony pension will be indexed January first of each year, according to article 590 of the Civil code of Quebec; 6−         The Defendant shall pay to the Applicant an amount of 10,000.00 $ as lump sum, payable September 17, 1999, and in consideration of this payment, the Applicant renounce to claim to the Defendant all form of alimony pension in the future. ... This is obvious from a comparison of the situation before and after the agreement of September 15, 1999. [9]      Before, the appellant was paying his wife $200 per week plus varying amounts for electricity, mortgage taxes and so forth, and was also voluntarily paying $400 per month for the two children. [10]     Commencing on October 1, 1999 the obligation to pay rent, hydro, telephone and so forth came to an end, the obligation to pay $200 per week to his wife ceased in consideration of a lump sum payment of $10,000 and the obligation to pay such things as rent, hydro etc. was replaced by an alimentary pension for the children of $575 per week. ...

Christina Tari Counsel for the Respondent: Craig Maw____________________________________________________________________ ORDER           Upon motion made by counsel for the appellant for an Order under section 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) for a determination, before hearing, of a question;           And upon reading the Affidavit of Michelle Julfs, filed;           And upon consideration of the oral and written submissions of counsel for the parties;           The application is dismissed. ... That position is stated in the notice of motion as follows: "... that the appellant did not make a gift pursuant to subsection 18.1(1) of the Income Tax Act because the appellant received consideration or material benefits in each year in the forms of (i) a loan, and (ii) a tax receipt. ...

./2           And upon consideration of the oral and written submissions of counsel for the parties;             And upon consideration of the written submissions of counsel for the parties upon the request by counsel for the respondent for a reconsideration of the Order of the Court dated June 22, 2006;             It is ordered that the respondent be allowed to make the amendments sought to the extent set out in the Reasons for Order and in the Supplemental Reasons for Order and that the Order of this court dated March 17, 2006, setting a timetable for the further steps in the appeal be vacated and the parties are directed to communicate with the court within 30 days of the final disposition of this motion to set a new timetable.   ...

The overall picture must be taken into consideration. As stated by Major J. in Sagaz, a trial judge should consider the answer to the question "whose business is it". [9]      In applying the Wiebe Door tests, I believe the control test is inconclusive. ... In answering the question whose business was it, I have no difficulty in concluding that it was the Appellant's business. [10]     While DiToro was an expert trainer and needed little or no instruction direction, the Appellant controlled where he trained, who he trained and what equipment he used. [11]     As stated, while the intention of the parties must be taken into consideration, the factual existing relationship must be determined particularly as in this instance the parties' intention differs. ...

In addition, he had no record of the various routes travelled by the drivers, who were often required to change routes, depending on seniority. [7]      The overall weekly remuneration was not in dispute; moreover, both the employer and the Appellant gave exactly the same testimony on this point. [8]      The Appellant stated that, at first, he had not paid attention to the number of hours of work, since the weekly salary suited him; he did whatever work was to be done, without asking any questions. [9]      He began to more closely examine the assessment of the number of hours shown on his pay stub from the moment one co-worker mentioned to him that it could potentially have an impact on his entitlement to Employment Insurance benefits. [10]     He then began making requests to his employer to correct the number of hours entered in the payroll so that his pay statement would show the actual number of hours of work, not 20 hours. [11]     The employer refused to take action because, following a union accreditation, the parties had started to negotiate a labour agreement, which precluded any change or amendment to the working conditions of the employees concerned by the eventual collective agreement. [12]     The employer, like the Appellant, expressly admitted that, at the time of hiring, the consideration of $300 a week had been the fundamental issue and that the agreement had in fact concerned mainly that issue, while acknowledging that the number of hours that that required had been a more secondary matter. [13]     Lastly, the parties admitted that the hourly wage paid for the specific work (making special trips) not included in the overall consideration of $300 had been set at $10. [14]     That hourly wage thus corresponded more to the assessment of the Appellant, according to whom the weekly salary of $300 was paid to him for 26 hours of work, the equivalent of an hourly wage of $11.50. [15]     If it had been 20 hours of work, as the Respondent determined, that would have represented an hourly wage of $15. [16]     Based on that assessment, the Appellant would have received one-third less salary when he had to make special trips, which is not very logical. ...

  [7]      Although the introductory comments by the Appellant’s agent do not constitute sworn testimony, counsel for the Respondent indicated that there was no challenge to their veracity, and I have taken them into consideration in my conclusion ... I have a great deal of sympathy for the taxpayer because his conduct was most honourable and deserving of substantial consideration. ...

The special circumstance and consideration involves the nature of the business and being part of an international company, my frequent travels on business trips, therefore, justifies delay in making this application. ... However, the fact that one or more related corporations may be reassessed at some time in the future is not a consideration that brings this case within subsection 167(5) of the Act. [6]      Before dismissing the application, I would simply note that if Mr. ...