Search - consideration

., [2016] BVC 19 (ECJ (8th Chamber))-- summary under Supply Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Supply additional “booking” charges by a service provider to those paying by credit card were not consideration for a separate supply NEC sold tickets on behalf of third parties to various trade, sporting and concert events held by them at the National Exhibition Centre. ... Before answering this question, the Court questioned the implicit assumption in the question that the NEC booking fees were consideration for a separate supply, stating (at paras. 18, 23): The Court, however, has already held that the additional charges invoiced by a service provider to its customers, where the latter pay for those services by credit card, debit card, cheque or cash over the counter at a bank or authorised payment agent acting on behalf of that service provider, do not constitute consideration for a supply of services distinct and independent from the principal supply of services in respect of which that payment was made (see… Everything Everywhere... ...

Akbari was a bare trustee and that only the Appellant was a “particular individual” for the purposes of subsection 254(2) of the ETA, it necessarily follows that the Appellant was also the person “who was liable under the agreement to pay the consideration” for the purpose of the definition of a “recipient”. ... Akbari for the consideration changes nothing to the notion that it is the Appellant, as legal and beneficial owner, who was ultimately liable for the consideration under the terms of the Trust Declaration. ...

R & S then appealed to the Tax Court and took the position in its pleadings that the allocation of consideration between partnership-interest and non-partnership interest consideration set out on the (T2059) election form did not reflect the actual agreed allocation. ... [I]f… the taxpayer disagreed with the fair market value upon which the Minister had reassessed, the taxpayer could object to, and ultimately appeal from, the resulting reassessment. … Other key facts, such as the allocation of consideration among transferred properties, are no different than fair market value. … The Minister is bound by the agreed amount because it is something that the parties have elected. ...

Immediately before the closing of the sale to MDPC, the taxpayer exchanged all his commons shares of MDPC under s. 86 for preferred shares with a redemption value of $2 million and for new common shares of MDPC, and then immediately sold 85% of those common shares equally to his wife and two children for nominal consideration. ... In finding that the taxpayer’s wife and two children did not become the beneficial owners of 85% of the new common shares until the transfer to them for nominal consideration, Hogan J stated (at paras 127 and 130): [T]here is no evidence that shows that the Appellant conveyed a beneficial interest in the aforementioned shares prior to the completion of the purchase and sale arrangement with his family member. ... There is nothing in the SPA that suggests that the Appellant had granted to his wife and two daughters the right to acquire the 85 Class B, C and D common shares for nominal consideration. ...

The Queen, 2018 TCC 157-- summary under Supply Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Supply property manager's share of rents in rental JV was not taxable consideration A corporation (MC) acted as a property manager for the rental properties of 10 corporations (the “Owners”) with which it did not deal at arm’s length in consideration for a percentage of the rents and other gross revenues that it collected. ... MC took the view tht its share of the gross revenues was not consideration for a taxable supply made by it to the Owners. ...

., 2018 FCA 166-- summary under Subsection 160(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 160- Subsection 160(1) stock dividend followed by redemption of the stock dividend shares effected in combination a transfer of property for no consideration Income account treatment of the profits realized by a condo-project limited partnership was avoided through the corporate partners (the Partnercos) of the partnership paying safe income dividends (out of the realized but unallocated condo profits) to their respective Holdco shareholders through the payment of stock dividends of preferred shares followed by a redemption of those preferred shares – in turn, followed by a sale by the Holdcos of the Partnercos to a public company with substantial resource pools (Nuinsco). ... After first finding that the allocation of the income to Nuinsco rather than to the Partnercos represented an abusive avoidance for purposes of s. 245(4) of ss. 96(1)(f) and 103(1), Woods JA went on to find that s. 160 would have applied to the transfer of property of the Partnercos to the Holdcos effected through the preferred share stock dividends and redemptions but for the fact that the associated tax liability did not arise until the income was allocated to an arm's length person (Nuinsco), stating (at paras. 112, 115): The stock dividends and the redemption together resulted in a transfer of cash “indirectly … by any means whatever” from Partnerco to Holdco without consideration. … Although the Algoa Trust decision deals with a cash dividend, the combination in this case of stock dividends followed by a redemption has the same effect and similarly results in a transfer of property without consideration. ...

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. ...

Agence du revenu du Québec, 2020 QCCQ 281-- summary under Subsection 254(6) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 254- Subsection 254(6) builder "ought to know" of rebate ineligibility based on CRA/ARQ Bulletins The Quebec new housing rebate is essentially the same as the ETA equivalent, except that entitlement to it is lost at a lower dollar level of total consideration for the “residential complex” that is purchased. Croteau, J.C.Q. found that the consideration paid by purchasers for new condo units in a complex also included the $25,000 they paid for an underground parking spot. ... Accordingly, for 93 of the purchases, the total consideration exceeded the dollar threshold, after taking the extra $25,000 into account. ...

The Queen, 2021 TCC 25, aff'd 2023 FCA 76-- summary under Paragraph 3(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Regulations- Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations- Section 3- Paragraph 3(b) invoices showing nil tax and not allocating between the included zero-rated and exempt supply complied with s. 3 A professional corporation’s orthodontics practice claimed input tax credits on the basis of an administrative arrangement of CRA with the Canadian Dental Association under which orthodontists filed their GST returns using 35% of the patient’s total treatment cost as an estimate of the consideration for the supply of the orthodontic appliance (which was zero-rated), with only the balance treated as exempt- and with a requirement, when the annual results became available at year end, to reconcile their 35% ITC estimate with their actual taxable supplies. However, in the view of CRA, the corporation did not comply with the requirement under this policy to “identify the consideration for the zero-rated supply of the appliance separately from the consideration for the exempt supply of services” (the agreement with the patient stated that “[o]ur orthodontic fee includes a portion, up to 35%, relating to the value of orthodontic appliances,” but the invoices contained no allocation between the services and device. ...

The Queen, 2021 TCC 25, aff'd 2023 FCA 76-- summary under Subsection 169(5) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 169- Subsection 169(5) agreement with the Canadian Dental Association was an exercise of discretion under s. 169(5) A professional corporation’s orthodontics practice claimed input tax credits on the basis of an administrative arrangement of CRA with the Canadian Dental Association under which orthodontists filed their GST returns using 35% of the patient’s total treatment cost as an estimate of the consideration for the supply of the orthodontic appliance (which was zero-rated), with only the balance treated as exempt- and with a requirement, when the annual results became available at year end, to reconcile their 35% ITC estimate with their actual taxable supplies. However, in the view of CRA, the corporation did not comply with the requirement under this policy to “identify the consideration for the zero-rated supply of the appliance separately from the consideration for the exempt supply of services” (the agreement with the patient stated that “[o]ur orthodontic fee includes a portion, up to 35%, relating to the value of orthodontic appliances,” but the invoices contained no allocation between the services and device. ...