Hugessen
J.A.:—We
are
all
of
the
view
that
the
present
case
is
indistinguishable
from
this
Court’s
decision
in
Canada
v.
Veritas
Seismic
(1987)
Ltd.,
[1994]
1
C.T.C.
241,
94
D.T.C.
6123.
In
that
case
the
taxpayer
used
data
obtained
from
its
customers
to
produce
seismic
sections
and
computer
tapes.
Here,
the
learned
Tax
Court
judge
described
the
taxpayer’s
business
as
‘the
gathering,
editing
and
interpretation
of
technical
data
for
wells
drilled
for
oil
and
gas
in
Canada".
The
respondent
then
placed
that
data
on
computer
tapes
or
microfiches
which
were
provided
to
its
customers
for
a
fee.
In
Veritas
Seismic,
supra,
at
page
243
(D.T.C.
6124-25),
Pratte
J.A.
speaking
for
the
Court
said:
In
order
to
determine
whether
a
taxpayer
is
engaged
in
the
manufacturing
or
processing
of
goods,
one
must
consider
realistically
the
whole
of
the
taxpayer’s
activity;
it
is
not
sufficient
to
have
regard
to
one
aspect
only
of
that
activity.
The
summary
that
I
made
of
the
respondent’s
business
shows,
in
my
view,
that
the
respondent
was
providing
services
to
its
customers
by
processing
the
raw
information
received
from
them,
and
derived
its
income
from
that
activity
rather
than
from
the
manufacturing
or
processing
of
goods.
Indeed,
the
only
part
of
the
respondent’s
activities
that
might
perhaps
be
characterized
as
manufacturing
or
processing
was
the
actual
physical
preparation
of
the
seismic
sections
and
the
output
tapes.
However,
those
two
simple
operations,
which
were
necessary
in
order
to
convey
the
result
of
the
respondent’s
work
to
its
customers,
were
not,
in
themselves,
the
source
of
its
income.
The
real
source
of
that
income
was
the
processing
of
information
which
cannot
be
equated
to
the
processing
or
manufacturing
of
goods.
[Emphasis
added.]
The
fact
that,
contrary
to
the
situation
in
Veritas,
the
taxpayer
here
itself
collected
the
data
from
various
public
sources
does
nothing
to
aid
the
respondent’s
case.
It
is
clear
that
the
essence
of
its
business
is
gathering,
processing
and
providing
information.
It
is
conceded
that
information
is
not
"goods"
within
the
meaning
of
section
125.1
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
See
Canadian
Wirevision
Ltd.,
79
D.T.C.
5101.
The
only
"goods"
involved
here
are
the
tapes
and
microfiches
which
serve
simply
as
the
medium
on
which
the
information
is
copied.
Assuming
that
they
are
in
fact
sold
or
leased
by
the
respondent,
such
sale
or
lease
is
not
the
real
source
of
its
income.
The
appeal
will
be
allowed
with
costs,
the
decision
of
the
Tax
Court
will
be
set
aside
and
the
taxpayer’s
appeals
to
that
Court
will
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content