Robertson
J
A.:
These
are
appeals
from
a
decision
of
Judge
Bonner
of
the
Tax
Court
who
held,
pursuant
to
subsection
127(8)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
that
the
taxpayers
who
carry
on
business
in
partnership,
may
not
claim
the
investment
tax
credit
(“ITC”)
at
the
enhanced
rate
of
35%
by
virtue
of
subsection
127(10.1).
In
our
respectful
view,
Judge
Bonner
did
not
err
in
reaching
that
conclusion,
which
is
consistent
with
the
maxim,
expressio
unius
est
ex-
clusio
alterius:
to
express
one
thing
is
to
exclude
another.
As
noted
by
the
Minister
in
his
written
submission,
subsection
127(8)
lists
the
paragraphs
within
the
general
definition
of
ITC
in
subsection
127(9)
which
are
available
to
partnerships
namely:
(a),
(b)
and
(e.1).
Subsection
129(8)
made
no
reference
to
paragraph
(e)
of
subsection
127(9)
which
establishes
the
right
to
claim
the
enhanced
ITC
under
subsection
127(10.1).
The
implied
exclusion
argument
suggests
that
if
the
Parliament
had
meant
to
permit
taxpayers
who
carry
on
business
in
partnership
to
benefit
from
the
enhanced
ITC
rate,
then
Parliament
would
have,
in
subsection
127(8),
also
referred
to
paragraph
(e).
In
our
view,
this
specific
provision
makes
it
clear
that
section
96
is
not
determinative
of
the
issue
at
hand
and
thus
is
so
despite
the
able
argument
of
Mr.
Malach.
For
these
reasons
and
those
of
Judge
Bonner
both
appeals
will
be
dismissed
with
one
set
of
costs,
including
disbursements
in
both
appeals.
Appeals
dismissed.
[1997]
2
C.T.C.
Tax
Court
Decisions
Email this Content