Search - consideration

One consideration is if payment of accumulated interest would cause a prolonged inability to provide basic necessities (financial hardship) such as food, medical help, transportation or shelter ...   [5]                Section 28 goes on to provide that consideration will not generally be given to cancelling a penalty based on an inability to pay or financial hardship unless extraordinary circumstances had prevented compliance, such as natural or man made disasters, civil disturbances or postal strikes, a serious illness or accident, or serious emotional distress. ...

(b)     All supplies made by the appellant in operating its restaurant and bar are taxable supplies for which a tax, namely, the goods and services tax (GST), is payable on the value of the consideration of the supply.   ...   [6]              According to the Minister, a review of the available documents shows that, during the periods in question, the appellant did not report all of the taxable supplies for which a tax of 7 percent on the value of the consideration was payable by the purchasers. [1]   [7]              The Minister's estimates also indicate that the amount of GST that the appellant was supposed to collect during the period in question is $145,168.86, whereas the appellant filed net tax returns reporting $60,600.10 ...

In terms of s. 10(c) of the Guidelines, I am not convinced that consideration was given to whether the house fire prevented Mr. ... I am not satisfied that CRA officials gave due consideration to these consequences ...

In consideration of this payment the respondent was released by the wife "from any further liability" under the said judgment. ... On June 30, 1950, when the child born of the marriage was less than eleven years old, the appellant made an arrangement with his wife whereby, in consideration of a sum of $4,000, she purported to release him of any further liability under the judgment. ...

It is argued that the definition of "government funding" contained in section 2 of the Public Service Body Rebate (GST) Regulations was ignored. 3 That definition includes money paid by the government "as consideration for making property or services available.... where supplies of the property or services.... are exempt supplies". [6]      The appellants referred us to amendments made by Parliament in 1997 in connection with the definitions of both "public college" and "selected public service body" which they argue altered the meaning of those words. ... In support of that conclusion, I note that all other persons entitled to rebates under subsection 259(1) are non-profit institutions (ie. hospitals, municipalities and non-profit schools and universities) that do not earn taxable income. [10]      In the English language the verb "to fund" means "to provide with money" or "to put into a fund", as opposed to the payment of money as consideration for the services performed under a contract. 8 My interpretation of the phrase "funded by a government" is also supported by the words used in the French version of the legislation "reçoit des subventions d"un gouvernement ou d"une municipalité". ...

Canada 2, where it was stated:... the test for appellate review of the exercise of judicial discretion is whether the judge at first instance gave sufficient weight to all relevant considerations. ... If that motion had been taken up by the Tax Court Judge before disposing of the motions to dismiss the appeals it might well have affected his judgment, for it would have required him to determine not only whether the appellants were in default in the discovery process but also whether the respondent was also in default of that process. [10]      We are satisfied from the foregoing that the Tax Court Judge failed to give sufficient weight to all relevant considerations in exercising his discretion on September 28, 1999, the result of which is that the appellants in these matters will be deprived from having their appeals heard and disposed of on the merits. ...

Subsection 160(1) of the Act reads:          160(1) Where a person has, on or after the 1st day of May, 1951, transferred property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, to                        (a) his spouse or a person who has since become his spouse;                        (b) a person who was under 18 years of age, or                        (c) a person with whom he was not dealing at arm's length,                   the following rules apply:                        (d) the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay a part of the transferor's tax under this Part for each taxation year equal to the amount by which the tax for the year is greater than it would have been if it were not for the operation of sections 74 to 75.1, in respect of any income from, or gain from the disposition of, the property so transferred or property substituted therefor, and                        (e) the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay under this Act an amount equal to the lesser of                            (i) the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at the time it was transferred exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given for the property, and                            (ii) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is an amount that the transferor is liable to pay under this Act in or in respect of the taxation year in which the property was transferred or any preceding taxation year,                   but nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to limit the liability of the transferor under any other provision of this Act.                   ... She contends that the Tax Court judge failed to consider the value of consideration given by her on the transfer of the matrimonial home and thereby deprived her of the benefit of subparagraph 160(1)(e)(i) of the Act. ...

Taking into consideration all of the circumstances, including the testimonies, admissions, documentary evidence, submissions of Counsel and available case law, I am of the view that the Appellant has not succeeded in this onus. ... Nor are we persuaded on that particular record that the terms and conditions under which the respondent Griffith was employed and the remuneration paid were not "analogous" to a contract of service within the meaning of subsection 34(1). [7]      This leaves for consideration the argument that the two sets of regulatory provisions go beyond the statutory authority conferred by paragraph 4(1)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act and paragraph 7(1)(d) of the Canada Pension Plan, respectively- in other words, that they are ultra vires. ...

  [6]                This is a direct attack on sections 110.2 and 120.31 of the ITA, based on considerations that are wholly extrinsic to the ITA. ... In as much as I am empowered to do so, I suggest that the amount is in fact interest and recommend that the Appellant's application under the fairness package be given careful consideration. ...

The grounds of appeal relate to her consideration of those factors.   [11]            The appellants correctly point out that Justice Woods, in determining who effectively controlled the operation of the hotel, generally preferred the evidence of the appellant Mr. ...   [15]            The appellants submit that Justice Woods erred in her consideration of the factors of chance of profit and risk of loss. ...