Search - consideration

Lubbock Fine & Co. v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, [1993] EUECJ C-63/92, [1994] 3 All ER 705-- summary under Subsection 221(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 221- Subsection 221(2) tenant's surrender of leasehold qualified as a letting of immovable property A U.K. firm of chartered accountants received a lump sum from its landlord in consideration for surrendering the residue of a lease to the landlord. In finding that the surrender came within a VAT exemption for the “letting of immovable property,” the Court stated (at paras. 8-10): The essence of the first question put by the national court is whether the term "letting of immovable property" used in Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive to define an exempt transaction covers the case where a tenant, for consideration, surrenders his lease and returns the immovable property to his immediate landlord. Where a given transaction, such as the letting of immovable property, which would be taxed on the basis of the rents paid, falls within the scope of an exemption provided for by the Sixth Directive, a change in the contractual relationship, such as termination of the lease for consideration, must also be regarded as falling within the scope of that exemption. ...

The Agreement provided that the fees of AC were payable by CIBC “in consideration of AC referring or arranging for Aeroplan members and other members of the public to make Card Applications and in consideration of AC performing its other obligations herein which are incidental to the foregoing.” ... …[T]here is no evidence that CIBC would have been prepared to pay consideration to Aeroplan for any of the separate elements on their own, and Aeroplan issued invoices to CIBC in respect of its “participation in the Aeroplan Program” for each of CIBC’s credit cards, generally computed with reference to the number of Aeroplan Miles issued during the relevant billing period. ...

., 2021 SCC 49, [2021] 3 S.C.R. 590-- summary under Treaties Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Treaties additional consideration in Treaty context of giving effect to the contractual bargain Before considering whether the taxpayer’s use of a capital gains exemption provision in the Canada-Luxembourg Treaty was an abuse under s. 245(4) given that the taxpayer was a conduit corporation rather than a corporation that had a significant economic connection to Luxembourg, Côté J stated (at paras. 29, 35-6): Like all statutes, tax legislation must be interpreted by conducting a “textual, contextual and purposive analysis to find a meaning that is harmonious with the Act as a whole” …. ... One of the most important operational goals is the elimination of double taxation, where the same source of income is taxed by two or more states without any relief. … Another important consideration is the dual nature — contractual and statutory — of tax treaties. Consideration of the contractual element is crucial to the application of the GAAR because it focuses the analysis on whether the particular tax planning strategy is consistent with the compromises reached by the contracting states. ...

The Queen, 95 DTC 311, [1993] 2 CTC 3125 (TCC)-- summary under Subsection 80(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 80- Subsection 80(1) promissory note enforceable A promissory note that the taxpayer had given as consideration for a limited partnership interest acquired by him was found to be a legally enforceable claim of the banks to which it had been assigned. Accordingly, the release of the taxpayer's obligations under the promissory note in consideration for the payment of a lower cash amount gave rise to the application of s. 80(1). ...

., Ltd. (1932), 17 TC 286 (KBD)-- summary under Subsection 10(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 10- Subsection 10(1) allocation of part of purchase price to oil in the ground not respected The taxpayer purchased the oil wells, plant and equipment of its subsidiary in consideration for issuing shares having a value of £120,000. The agreement allocated £70,000 of the consideration to the oil in the wells which were purchased. ...

The Queen, [1995] GSTC 34 (TCC)-- summary under Subsection 153(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 153- Subsection 153(2) Lamarre TCJ. concluded that s. 153(2) did not have the effect of deeming a separate service fee charged by a co-operative retail outlet to its members to be consideration paid by them for zero-rated groceries. Instead, the provision "was designed as an anti-avoidance rule that applies where there has been an unreasonable apportionment of consideration as between two or more supplies" (p. 34-6). ...

" The development levies which were so reimbursed by the home purchasers were found to be part of the taxable consideration for such home sales, with the result that Mattamy was found to have been understating the sales price to the purchasers. As the new housing rebates ("NHRs") of the purchasers (which they had assigned to Mattamy and which it had rebated to them as contemplated in s. 234(1)) decreased as the sales price increased above $350,000, this increased taxable consideration decreased the NHRs which were properly claimable on some of the sales. ... Because the amount of a NHR is a function of the consideration for the home, it follows that a reasonable person would have known that some of the amounts paid or credited by Mattamy in respect of Purchasers' NHR claims were excessive. ...

MFT then sold these preferred shares to "McClarty" (the family patriarch, holder of the Class A voting shares of MPSI and sole trustee of MFT) in consideration for a demand promissory note of $48,000. ... McClarty then sold his preferred shares of MPSI to a corporation ("101 SK") of which he was the sole shareholder and director in consideration for a $48,000 demand promissory note, which 101 SK then repaid out of cash proceeds received by it on the redemption of the preferred shares. The taxpayers alleged that these cash proceeds were used by McClarty to repay another loan (not described above) that had been made to him by MFT rather than the $48,000 promissory note that had been the consideration for his purchase of the preferred shares. ...

In 1965 the taxpayer acquired the property from the company in consideration for the assumption of $311,000 of mortgages, and was issued a promissory note of the company for $53,000, so that his net cost was $259,000, i.e., $85,000 less than the company's cost. ... In rejecting an argument that the promissory note did not give rise to a benefit in the year of issuance, Jackett CJ stated (at p. 5361): [W]hen a debt is created from a company to a shareholder for no consideration, or inadequate consideration, a benefit is conferred....On the other hand, when a debt is paid, assuming it was well secured, no benefit is conferred because the creditor has merely received that to which he is entitled. ...

., professional fees and web design), and after having noted at (para. 52) that credits would have been available if there instead were only an undertaking for the future making of taxable supplies, Warren J stated (at para. 124): Noreseman needs to establish that, when it incurred input tax in the relevant period, it had either already made supplies for a consideration (the first question) or that it had the intention of making at some time in the future supplies for a consideration (the second question). ... He added (at para. 126) that “if the intention had been to charge a nominal amount of, say £100 per annum, that would be unlikely to satisfy the EU law necessary to establish consideration.” ...