Search - consideration

Based on this factor the Worker was hired under a contract of service. [22]          The intentions of the parties may be a factor but the Court must look at the combined force of the whole scheme of operation in order to establish the nature of the contract. [23]          Taking into consideration all of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the Worker was engaged in insurable employment and that there was an employer-employee relationship between the Worker and the Appellant for the period June 4, 1998 to January 15, 1999. [24]          Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the Minister's decision is varied on the basis that the Worker was engaged in insurable employment for the period June 4, 1998 to January 15, 1999. ...

This may well be a consideration for the Minister to take into account if an application under subsection 220(3.1) is made to have the penalties waived. ...

The appeal of Teriann Hurd is allowed on the basis that she received from Ron Gilman $6,250 for inadequate consideration of the property. ...

Analysis [24]          The Appellant argues that the 1995 net income should have been as follows: 1995 Revised Income Description Net Loss Net Income Cas Car Income $ 15,400.00 Other Sources      1,628.57 Revised Income    $ 17,028.57 Business Loss $ 13,632.71 Business Rent        327.42 Interest Adjust      1,737.45 Revised Loss $15,697.58 Revised Net Profit    $ 1,330.99 [25]          The Appellant further argued that the year 1996 should have been as follows: 1995 Revised Income Description Net Loss Net Income Cas Car Income $ 13,500.00 Other Sources      2,485.00 Revised Income    $ 15,985.00 Business Loss $ 9,831.58 Business Rent        327.42 Interest Adjust      1,187.87 Revised Loss $11,346.49 Revised Net Profit    $ 4,638.51 [26]          However, the enterprise in order to show a profit to the Appellant, would have to produce sufficient revenues to pay the husband's compensation to the amount of $35,000 annually. [27]          The income put forth by the Respondent in argument is not sufficient as it does not take into consideration the Appellant's stated intention to pay the husband up to $35,000 annually to replace his lost salary. ...

In the circumstances, and as was said in Donnelly, any doubt as to whether the appellant's chief source of income is farming is resolved once consideration is given to the element of profitability. [11]          From the evidence, I find that this farm has not been and is not likely to become profitable, at least if the appellant operates it at the level of which he seems to be capable in terms of time and available capital. [12]          For these reasons, it is difficult for me to conclude that the appellant's chief source of income was farming or a combination of farming and another source of income within the meaning of section 31 of the Act. [13]          The respondent having already assessed the appellant on the basis that he is entitled to a restricted farm loss pursuant to section 31 for each year at issue, the assessments will remain unchanged. [14]          As for the secondary question of whether the respondent was right in adjusting the expenses based on the documentation provided by the appellant, there was no evidence put before this Court that would justify me in revising the adjustments made by the Minister. [15]          For these reasons, the appeals will be dismissed. [16]          With respect to costs, although the respondent would normally be entitled to costs, I will grant none in the present case given the appellant's precarious financial situation. ...

In the present case, I conclude, taking all of the circumstances and facts into consideration, that the assumption in paragraph 8(b) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal is correct. ...

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK [6]            The relevant provisions of the Act are: 165. (1) Subject to this Part, every recipient of a taxable supply made in Canada shall pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada a tax in respect of the supply calculated at the rate of 7% of the value of the consideration for the supply. 221. (1) Every person who makes a taxable supply shall, as agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada, collect the tax under Division II payable by the recipient in respect of the supply. 225. (1) Subject to this Subdivision, the net tax for a particular reporting period of a person is the positive or negative amount determined by the formula                 A- B where A is the total of (a) all amounts that became collectible and all other amounts collected by the person in the particular reporting period as or on account of tax under Division II, and 228. (2) Where the net tax for a reporting period of a person is a positive amount, the person shall, except where subsection (2.1) or (2.3) applies in respect of the reporting period, remit that amount to the Receiver General, 232. (1) Where a particular person has charged to, or collected from, another person an amount as or on account of tax under Division II in excess of the tax under that Division that was collectible by the particular person from the other person, the particular person may, within two years after the day the amount was so charged or collected,... ...

., Calgary Alberta and is legally described as Plan 7510612, Block 41, Lot 2A; (c)            John Swift acquired the Property on or about May 13, 1997; (d)            John Swift acquired the property from his stepson; (e)            John Swift valued the Property at $72,000 when he acquired it; (f)             John Swift was the sole owner of the Property from May 13, 1997 until April 21, 1998; (g)            on or about April 21, 1998, John Swift transferred his interest in the Property to the Appellant; (h)            on April 21, 1998, both the legal and beneficial ownership of the Property was transferred to the Appellant; (i)             at all material times John Swift was the Appellant's spouse; (j)             at all material times John Swift was not dealing with the Appellant at arm's length; (k)            at the time of the transfer the fair market value of the Property was not less than $116,000.00; (l)             the transfer documents indicate that the consideration the Appellant paid for the property was $72,000, comprised of the assumption of the existing mortgage and cash; (m)           the amount owing on the mortgage assumed by the Appellant was $51,457.43; (n)            net cash proceeds in the amount of $20,542.57 were paid to John Swift in April 1998; (o)            on April 29, 1998, the $20,542.57 referred to in the previous subparagraph was deposited into a joint bank account that was in the Appellant's and John Swift's names (the "Joint Account"); (p)            the balance in the Joint Account immediately before the $20,542.57 was deposited into it was $2,500.00; (q)            the funds in the Joint Account were used to buy real property located at 25 Westland Road, Okotoks, Alberta, which was registered solely in the Appellant's name; (r)             John Swift continued to reside at the Property until he and the Appellant moved into the house at 25 Westland Road, Okotoks, Alberta; and (s)            the aggregate of all amounts that John Swift was liable to pay under the Act in respect of the taxation year in which he property was transferred or in any preceding taxation year was at least $15,982.06. [4]            Assumption (k) is in dispute. ...

Galanakis' case, the Minister of National Revenue added to his business income from operating a taxi $4,119.79 and $2,864.03 in revenue and $2,403.68 and $3,309.39 in tips for 1992 and 1993 respectively. [4] In the case of both appellants, the Minister taxed them in 1993 on the basis that they had realized a capital gain of $258,195 on the transfer of two houses to their sons for no consideration. ...

No. 655. [11]     Taking into consideration all the circumstances of these appeals, including the testimony of the Appellants, the admissions and the documentary evidence, in the light of the well-established case law, I am satisfied that the Appellants have failed in their onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that during the 1995 taxation year, they had a reasonable expectation of profit in the operation of the business known as "Pathfinders". [12]     Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. ...