Search - consideration

It was admitted and acknowledged that this was compensation, as the appellant had performed no work in consideration of this lump sum amount. [13]          Of course, the appellant and her employer could have agreed to have her go to the office every day and perform various tasks or duties during the period covered by the compensation, in which case the hours put in would actually have been hours worked. The amount paid would essentially have been wages paid for work actually performed or, in other words, for hours actually worked. [14]          However, both the testimony and documentary evidence clearly show that this amount was compensation equal to three months' wages paid in consideration of faithful service rendered by the appellant to her employer over 10 years. ...

(t)             The appellant did not provide a consideration for the $65,460.46 he received from Ms.  ... The amount claimed under the assessment is $67,424.15. [7]              Subsection 325(1) of the ETA reads as follows: Non arm’s length’s transfer liability 325. (1) Where at any time a person transfers property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means, to (a) the transferor’s spouse or common-law partner or an individual who has since become the transferor’s spouse or common-law partner, (b) an individual who was under eighteen years of age, or (c) another person with whom the transferor was not dealing at arm’s length, the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay under this Part an amount equal to the lesser of (d) the amount determined by the formula A – B where A is the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at that time exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given by the transferee for the transfer of the property, and B is the amount, if any, by which the amount assessed the transferee under subsection 160(2) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the property exceeds the amount paid by the transferor in respect of the amount so assessed, and (e) the total of all amounts each of which is (i) an amount that the transferor is liable to pay or remit under this Part for the reporting period of the transferor that includes that time or any preceding reporting period of the transferor, or (ii) interest or penalty for which the transferor is liable as of that time, but nothing in this subsection limits the liability of the transferor under any provision of this Part. [8]              Subsections 323(1) and (2) of the ETA read as follows: Liability of directors 323. (1) If a corporation fails to remit an amount of net tax as required under subsection 228(2) or (2.3) or to pay an amount as required under section 230.1 that was paid to, or was applied to the liability of, the  corporation as a net tax refund, the directors of the corporation at the time the corporation was required to remit or pay, as the case may be, the amount are jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable, together with the corporation, to pay the amount and any interest on, or penalties relating to, the amount. ...

Furlong also believes that the CRA did not give due consideration to his submissions, especially since the CRA did not provide a second level of review even though Mr. ... Furlong’s request for a second level review to the CRA for their consideration.   ...

This amount is taken into consideration in the deduction allowed in the computation of taxable income for 2010, pursuant to subparagraph 110(1)(f)(ii) of the ITA ... I understand that the appellant is challenging the calculation of the adjusted income that is taken into consideration when establishing the GST credit. [2]           For which there is no appeal possible: see Interior Savings Credit Union v. ...

Therefore, the Court must be satisfied that the taxpayer has been heard, and that the Minister took into consideration all of the taxpayer's submissions before reaching a decision (see, for example, Courchesne v. ... The Minister did not act in bad faith, and there was no breach of the principles of fundamental justice or consideration of extraneous or irrelevant factors which would warrant this Court's intervention.       ...

The court may intervene and set aside the discretionary decision under review only if that decision was made in bad faith, if its author clearly ignored some relevant facts or took into consideration irrelevant facts or if the decision is contrary to law. [6]                 Justice Rouleau in Kaiser v. ... The Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2, as follows: Where the statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith and, where required, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and where reliance has not been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose, the courts should not interfere. [7]                 When she responded to the applicant's request dated February 7, 2000, for a waiver of interest, K. ...

Rather, the question for the Court is whether the Minister's delegate erred in fettering his discretion under sections 220(2.1) and 220(3) of the ITA, by improperly imposing limits on the factors that he would consider as potentially justifying a waiver of the filing requirement. [13]            In my view, this question involves a consideration of the parameters of the discretion conferred by the relevant sections of the ITA. ... While one might surmise that there may be departmental guidelines in place governing this type of fairness request, no such guidelines have been placed before the Court. [21]            The question, then, is whether the Minister's delegate improperly limited his consideration of Dorothea's request for an extension of time to examining whether the case fit one of the three criteria identified in the decision, or whether the Minister's delegate indeed made an independent judgment with respect to the merits of Dorothea's request. [22]            The respondent submits that the Minister's delegate did fairly consider Dorothea's arguments, but nevertheless decided not to exercise his discretion in Dorothea's favour. ...

Barron, [1997] 2 C.T.C. 198 (F.C.A.) at 200 clearly establishes that, with respect to the Minister's exercise of discretion under subsection 152(4.2) of the ITA,_ the court may intervene and set aside the decision only if that decision was made in bad faith, if its author clearly ignores some relevant facts or took into consideration irrelevant facts or if the decision is contrary to law_. ... Scarcello clearly ignored some relevant facts or took into consideration irrelevant facts or that the decision is contrary to law. ...

Absent bad faith on the part of the Minister, a breach of the principles of natural justice or consideration of extraneous or irrelevant factors, there is nothing to warrant the Court's interference with the exercise of his discretion. ... I am satisfied that the Director exercised his discretion in good faith, considered only relevant considerations and his final decision is not patently unreasonable, being supported by the fact that the applicant continually filed a great many GST returns late after he had hired a new accountant in 1995, which was almost four years after the death of Ms. ...

Justice MacKay BETWEEN:                                                          ALASDAIR MACKAY                                                                                                                                             Applicant                                                                        - and-                                 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, representing THE                                 CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY                                                                                                                                         Respondent                                        REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1]                 These reasons concern the disposition of the application by Alasdair MacKay for judicial review and an order setting aside the decision made at the Surrey Taxation Centre of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency ("CCRA") on October 12, 2000 which denied the applicant's request for waiver or adjustment of interest assessed in relation to income tax arrears for the years 1988 and 1989. [2]                 After consideration of submissions made, by Mr. ... He raised for consideration that he had been unaware of the claim for tax arrears and interest until the fall of 1999, that since his return to Canada he had been unemployed and was then engaged in further training although the limits of financial resources available to him were not specified. ...