Search - consideration

Following careful consideration of all issues raised, I am of the opinion that the metal sheets are “contractors’ equipment, with Class 10(h)”. ...

The Queen 4 in reference to Reynolds, this situation is completely different from one in which, by mutual consent, an employee transfers his or her rights under an option agreement for predetermined consideration: In that case it was clear that at the time the settlement was reached, the taxpayer"s stock option rights as such had already passed out of existence and, accordingly, that no rights remained to be transferred or otherwise disposed of "under" the agreement. ...

  [8]               A further consideration in my decision not to quash this appeal is that the Court Registry has opened it as an income tax appeal. ...

A consideration of the predecessor of subsection 231.2(1) was made in James Richardson & Sons Limited and Minister of National Revenue, [1984] C.T.C. 345; 9 D.L.R. (4th) 1, at page 351 (D.L.R. 9), where Madam Justice Wilson for the court stated: The very presence of those provisions in the Act serves, in my view, to support the approach taken in the Canadian Bank of Commerce case that subsection 231(3) is only available to the Minister to obtain information relevant to the tax liability of some specific person or persons if the tax liability of such person or persons is the subject of a genuine and serious inquiry. ...

. — The consideration to the Appellant for the disposition of the shares was totally comprised of promissory notes payable on demand. — In reassessing the Appellant, the Minister of National Revenue assumed, inter alia, that the Appellant is not entitled to the deduction of a reserve in respect of any portion of the proceeds of disposition, since no portion of the proceeds was due to him after the end of the 1983 taxation year. ...

Upon the consideration of this or any other question related to the merit of this case, we are precluded to enter, for there was no right of appeal from the decision of the Minister to the Board nor, therefore, to the Exchequer Court; the objection taken in this respect, by the respondent, before the Board and again in the Exchequer Court, should have been decided and maintained. ...

Accordingly consideration can be given to representations directed to the justification of an award in a lump sum in the judgment in excess of taxable costs, otherwise the lump sum should be the taxable costs and disbursements provided for in the tariff bearing in mind that there is to be one removal and sale. ...

The Court held that the Appellant's loan to Prescient was not made for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property and therefore, his loss must be deemed to be nil under Section 40(2)(g)(ii) of the Income Tax Act (ITA). 40(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) (g)- a taxpayer's loss, if any, from the disposition of a property, to the extent that it is (ii) a loss from the disposition of a debt or other right to receive an amount unless the debt or right, as the case may be, was acquired for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property (other than exempt income) or as consideration for the disposition of capital property to a person with whom the taxpayer was dealing at arm's length, is nil. [9]                In considering this section of the ITA, the Tax Court held that the taxpayer carries the burden of demonstrating a nexus between the investment of the funds and the generation of income. ...

Consequently, Glen Dimplex approached the investors group and agreed that if the group would walk away from the deal (i.e. not make a bid with respect to Chromalox) Glen Dimplex would pay the group $1,000,000. (4)            Glen Dimplex feared that the $1,000,000 payment would attract GST and consequently raised the total to $1,070,000 to take into consideration the seven percent GST tax on the $1,000,000. (5)            There was some discussion as to whether the $70,000 should be considered as interest as opposed to GST but, in my opinion, the evidence leads to the conclusion that the $70,000 represented GST. (6)            Another fact is that the Appellant did not file a GST return in respect of the said transaction as it was the Appellant's conclusion that the transaction was exempt from GST as constituting either a financial service or a foreign transaction. (7)            The last reassessment by the Respondent took place on October 26, 1998 which is approximately six years after the filing due date. [3]            A Notice of Objection was filed with respect to the assessment of October 26, 1998. [4]            Some of the most relevant documents are the agreement between Glen Dimplex and the investors group which was signed in Toronto and a related trust agreement appointing John Ingle and Steven Overgaard as trustees for the investment group also signed in Toronto (Tabs 2 and 3 of the Appellant's Documents) ...

But notwithstanding the fact that those people were professional traders, there can always be one different purchase which requires special consideration. ...