Search - consideration

The Queen, 2015 DTC 1141 [at at 908], 2015 TCC 146-- summary under Compensation Payments Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 9- Compensation Payments payments received in consideration for reducing lease payments were compensation for lost lease income, and s. 9 income Leases by the taxpayer ("GMAC") to GM dealership customers stipulated a "residual value" at which the customer could purchase the vehicle at lease termination. General Motors of Canada Limited ("GMC") would make "residual value support payments" to GMAC in consideration for GMAC increasing the residual values (thereby reducing lease payments). ...

MFT then sold these preferred shares to McClarty in consideration for a demand promissory note of $48,000. McClarty then sold these preferred shares 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. ...

., 98 DTC 6297, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 770, [1998] 3 CTC 177-- summary under Subsection 56(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 56- Subsection 56(2) inapplicable to dividends on discretionary shares paid to inactive spouse The taxpayer transferred his shares of a commercial real estate company to a newly-incorporated company ("Melru") in consideration for 1,285.714 Class G shares of Melru. ... After noting that the only relevant distinction with the facts in McClurg was that, here, the wife of the taxpayer had made no contribution to the corporation (other than paying the consideration for her shares), and before going on to find that s. 56(2) did not apply to attribute any portion of the dividend income to the taxpayer, Iacobucci C.J. stated (at p. 6304): "I am not aware of any principle of corporate law that requires in addition that a so-called 'legitimate contribution' be made by a shareholder to entitle him or her to dividend income and it is well accepted that tax law embraces corporate law principles unless such principles are specifically set aside by the taxing statute. ...

Respecting the weight to be given to the parties' allocation, he stated (at para. 75, 78, after citing Gabco): [A]n amount can reasonably be regarded as being consideration for the disposition of a particular property if a reasonable business person, with business considerations in mind, would have allocated that amount to that particular property....That the parties to an arm's length transaction have agreed on an allocation is an important factor to consider, but an agreed allocation which does not meet the reasonableness test may still be challenged under section 68. ...

Regarding the criterion in s. 181(3) that a coupon be for a fixed dollar amount, he stated (at para. 35): In this day and age of electronic commerce and the use of purchase and sale devices not contemplated 20 years ago, I am of the view that where the fixed amount is clearly known to both sides, and is evidenced in writing, as hard copy or electronically, that can be offered by a customer as partial consideration, the requirement has been met. ... A further arrangement under which customers who purchased TM phones (generally from third-party stores) received coupons, mailed them in to a TM agent, and received a rebate cheque from the agent also did not entitle TM to input tax credits under s. 181(3)(b) as the coupons were not accepted by the supplier of the phones (the third parties) and also because the coupons were not accepted by TM "as consideration for anything" but rather were a rebate ("money that is paid back" (para. 58). ...

Zhang incorporated a B.C. company ("Beamtech") and secured approval from a Chinese authority for the transfer of his shares of LABest to Beamtech for cash consideration of U.S.$150,000 – which was effected without further specific advice from Bob. ... Zhang as purported additional consideration for the transfer, a joint s. 85(1) election was filed and a rectification order was sought to have the share issue be considered to have occurred on the date of the transfer. ...

Furthermore, Cumming J had previously (at para. 32) interpreted the termination fee that allegedly was payable under the MSA as "notionally and legally part of the overall 'consideration for the supply' of services under the MSA," so that the Settlement Agreement represented an agreement "to pay 50% of the 'consideration for the supply' asserted as being payable under the MSA" (para. 28) rather than to pay an amount described in s. 182. ...

Poelman J found (at para. 240) that the imputed credit rating of EEC (otherwise no higher than BB-) should not: allow consideration of implicit support to influence opinions about reasonable interest rates…. ... However, after referencing a Gabco- derived test as to “whether no business would have contracted to pay that amount, having only its business considerations in mind and under the form of transaction pursuant to which the obligation was incurred,” and concluded that the interest was fully deductible. ...

In accepting the HMRC’s position that the vouchers were consideration for taxable supplies of club facilities provided by the appellants to the dancers, Richards LJ stated (at paras 42, 48 and 50): …[T]he critical point in my judgment is whether it is right to treat, as part of the services supplied in return for the commission payable on encashment of vouchers, the provision of the club's facilities to the dancers to enable them to obtain income from non-cash customers. … … [A] commission of 20% for the encashment of a voucher, even with the benefits of inclusion in the scheme, is on the face of it very high, particularly as the appellants ran, as they knew, a very low credit risk. … [T]he UT's analysis that the provision of the club's facilities forms part of the consideration for the commission on encashment of the vouchers is a legitimate interpretation of the constituent parts of the services supplied by the appellants in return for the commission. ...

The Province then breached terms of the building lease and, in the subsequent settlement agreement, the parties agreed that the Province owed $2.4 million to Armour and that Armour, in consideration for $2.4 million to be paid by way of set-off, would be granted an irrevocable option to acquire the Province’s freehold interest (with the ground lease being terminated). ... Armour took the position that the $2.24 million paid by it was fully deductible as consideration for the ground lease termination. ...