Kempo,
T.C.CJ.:—This
appeal
concerns
the
appellant's
1983,
1984
and
1985
taxation
years
during
which
time
it
was
actively
engaged
in,
inter
alia,
scientific
research
and
development
for
the
purpose
of
researching
and
developing
computer
software
solutions
(hereinafter
sometimes
called
the"R&D"
project)
for
the
purpose
of
meeting
the
perceived
needs
of
the
North
American
transportation
industry.
The
issues
The
appellant
included
various
expenditures
related
to
the
R&D
project
in
calculating
its
investment
tax
credit
(the
"ITC")
for
each
of
its
taxation
years
under
appeal.
These
appeals
arose
out
of
the
respondent's
disallowance
of
certain
expenditures
claimed
for
that
purpose
with
respect
to
this
project;
however
they
were
allowed
as
deductions
for
the
purposes
of
calculating
the
appellant's
taxable
income
for
each
taxation
year.
At
the
trial
it
was
common
ground
that
if
any
of
the
disallowed
expenditures
are
allowable
for
the
purposes
of
calculating
the
appellant’s
ITC
with
respect
to
the
R&D
project,
they
are
to
be
correspondingly
disallowed
as
deductions
in
the
calculation
of
its
taxable
income
for
each
year.
At
the
opening
of
the
hearing
counsel
for
each
party
advised
that,
save
for
two
particular
expenditure
items,
all
of
the
rest
had
been
re-examined
and
resolved
by
agreement.
The
particulars
of
the
agreement
will
be
itemized
at
the
end
of
these
reasons.
With
respect
to
two
remaining
items
still
in
dispute,
one
concerned
interest
expenditures
arising
out
of
money
borrowed
to
finance
the
salaries
and
benefits
paid
to
the
appellant's
R&D
personnel,
and
the
other
related
to
the
registration
and
travel
costs
arising
from
computer
software
conference
attendances
by
its
R&D
staff
in
1984
and
1985.
In
a
nutshell,
if
these
items
are
characterized
as
"prescribed
expenditures"
within
section
2902
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations
(the
"Regulations")
they
would
not
be
“qualified
expenditures"
for
investment
tax
credit
purposes
within
subsections
127(5)
and
127(9)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act").
These
legislative
provisions
are
set
out
later
under
the
heading
"The
Law”.
The
facts
The
only
verbal
testimony
heard
was
that
of
James
Figley
who
was
the
appellant’s
founder
and
its
president
at
all
material
times.
He
testified
that
the
appellant
was
incorporated
in
late
December
1982
to
facilitate
research
and
development
in
a
computer
software
area
which
had
been
the
study
project
of
a
large
transportation
company
and
its
national
accounting
firm
in
Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan.
Based
on
what
he
had
learned
in
assisting
them
in
this
research,
Mr.
Figley
determined
there
was
a
good
business
opportunity
to
be
had
in
this
field
as
the
study
had
underscored
a
need
that
was
not
being
met.
The
appellant
began
by
hiring
a
few
programmers
to
look
at
relational
databases
which
were
extremely
new
at
that
time.
These
employees
were
University
of
Saskatoon
computer
science
graduates
with
degrees
in
Commerce
or
Science
or
Engineering.
Free
space
for
the
R&D
staff
was
gained
initially,
but
as
the
project
developed
larger
premises
were
taken
and
more
R&D
staff
were
hired
to
move
the
R&D
project
along
faster.
The
interest
issue
Salaries
and
benefits
paid
to
R&D
personnel
amounted
to
approximately
$160,000
for
1983,
$190,000
for
1984
and
in
excess
of
$200,000
for
1985.
The
payroll
financing
was
through
shareholder
equity
input
and
bank
operating
loans.
During
the
1983,
1984
and
1985
years
the
appellant
was
also
trading
in
computer
hardware
and
software
sales,
earning
revenues
therefrom
of
(rounded
out)
$299,500,
$452,500
and
$885,700
respectively.
Gross
profit,
before
overhead
and
administration
costs,
amounted
to
$110,800,
$221,800
and
$393,300
respectively
according
to
restated
financial
statements
filed
with
the
appellant’s
1986
tax
return.
Mr.
Figley
testified
that
half
of
the
appellant's
borrowings
in
both
1983
and
1984
were
allocated
to
R&D
salary
and
benefit
expenditures,
and
that
in
1985
the
percentage
was
less
than
one-
quarter
of
the
total.
These
interest
amounts
were
$3,170.98
for
1983,
$8,126.35
for
1984
and
$9,675.29
for
1985.
The
balance
of
the
borrowings
went
to
financing
the
purchase
of
the
computer
equipment
for
profitable
resale
in
an
operation
which
remained
apart
from
the
non
revenue
producing
R&D
activities.
The
appellant's
overall
plan
was
to
successfully
design
a
relational
database
called
Tranfo
which
would
be
copyrighted
and
then
marketed
for
profitable
sale
in
the
future
to
the
North
American
transportation
industry.
It
was
described
as
a
two-stage
operation.
The
first
was
research
and
development,
the
second
being
marketing.
Throughout
the
1983-1986
years
no
income
was
generated
from
the
project
because
it
was
still
in
its
research
and
development
stage.
The
respondent
allowed
amounts
expended
for
salaries
and
benefits
paid
to
the
R&D
personnel
in
the
calculation
of
the
appellant’s
ITC
but
disallowed
the
interest
paid
on
the
moneys
borrowed
to
fund
these
expenditures.
The
software
conference
issue
The
second
matter
in
dispute
pertained
to
1984
and
1985
software
conferences
held
in
the
U.S.A.
which,
Mr.
Figley
urged,
were
significant
and
very
important
to
the
relational
database
research
that
was
taken
on.
He
said
Canadian
expertise
was
lacking
at
the
time
and
that
even
today,
some
nine
years
later,
there
is
only
one
Canadian
university
engaged
in
substantial
work
in
the
area
of
relational
databases
which
is
the
University
of
Waterloo
in
Ontario.
Both
conferences
were
organized
through
the
auspices
of
International
Database
Management
Association,
Inc.
("IDMA")
of
San
Diego,
California.
The
expenditures
were
$3,085.19
for
1984
and
$4,754.79
for
1985.
The
1984
forum
was
called
Pick
Spectrum
'84.
It
was
a
three-day
February
conference
in
Reno,
Nevada
which
touted
itself
as
the
most
unique
business
computer
systems
forum
in
the
world.
Its
program
was
comprised
of
three
individual
special
interest
paths.
One
was
called
the
computer
education
path
to
help
those
interested
in
the
purchase
and
use
of
a
business
computer.
Another
was
a
manufacturers'
path
involving
product
updates.
The
third,
which
Mr.
Figley
stressed
was
of
vital
interest
to
the
Tranfo
project,
was
the
technical
path
designed
specifically
for
the
people
who
were
programmers,
engineers
and
systems
analysts.
He
said
that
the
conference
produced
relational
database
information
in
areas
such
as
assembly
language,
voice
text,
voice
response,
forward
incoding
and
other
significantly
useful
technical
matters.
The
1985
forum
was
in
identical
format,
was
called
International
Spectrum
USA,
and
was
a
three-day
meeting
held
in
New
Orleans,
Louisiana
during
March.
The
benefits
realized
by
the
appellant
as
a
result
of
R&D
staff
attendances
were
explained
by
Mr.
Figley
thusly:
A.
Well,
what
we
found
from
the
experience
in
1984,
and
we'd
had
tremendous
feedback
from
other
organizations,
was
that
you
could
expect
massive
productivity
increases,
and
what
we
found
from
1984
was
—
was
not
increases
in
the
neighbourhood
of
10
per
cent
improvement
in
productivity
or
20
per
cent.
We
found
improvement
in
multiples.
It
was
incredible
the
efficiency
because
of
some
of
the
new
programming
techniques
or
some
of
the
new
software
tools
that
they
were
able
to
use.
For
example,
the
one
year
Scott
came
back
with
—
there
was
one
course
on
what
was
called
B-trees
and
it
was
a
new
programming
methodology
based
on
the
relational
databases
and
the
change
to
our
software
development
was
immense
because
it
enabled
the
programmers
to
shorten
the
programs
up
substantially
so
there
was
less
lines
of
code
and
also
the
software,
because
there
was
less
lines
of
code,
was
far
more
efficient
and
also
faster,
so
the
applications
ran
much
faster
on
smaller
pieces
of
equipment.
So,
after
1985
—
well,
for
1985
if
we
could
have
sent
—
if
we
could
have
afforded
to
send
every
one
of
our
software
development
people
we
would
have
sent
them
because
of
the
massive
increases
in
productivity.
Even
with
the
ones
that
we
sent,
their
feedback
to
the
other
ones
and
the
subsequent
retraining
of
the
other
ones,
the
increase
in
productivity
was
very,
very
noticeable.
[T.
49
1.3
to
T.
50
1.3]
Q.
What
was
the
purpose
of
having
your
people
go
and
attend
this
conference?
A.
The
purpose
was
to
upgrade
the
—
the
educational
skills
and
the
programming
skills
of
—
of
the
R&D
personnel
that
we
sent
down.
[T.
511.18
to
22]
Q.
Tell
us
about
1985.
You
were
at
1985?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What
was
that
conference
like?
A.
Again
we
sent
some
R&D
personnel
down
there,
who
attended
the
training
courses
that
were
provided
that
covered
business
graphics
and
artificial
intel-
ligence,
also
something
called
correlatives
and
the
correlatives
were
—
became
an
extremely
important
tool
in
the
Tranfo
software
development
because
you
could
essentially
format
reports
within
a
correlative,
which
would
allow
you
to,
by
simply
changing
the
correlative,
you
would
change
all
of
the
print
formats.
Instead
of
reprogramming
something,
the
end
users
could
actually
do
this
and
it
was
a
very
powerful
tool
in
the
hands
of
the
end
user
because
essentially
it
turned
nonprogrammers
into
programmers
without
them
having
to
take
any
programming
education.
So
that
was
extremely
important.
Q.
Did
you
ever
have
occasion
to
apply
that
kind
of
technology
or
knowledge
in
your
research
and
development.
A.
Oh,
absolutely.
In
fact,
with
only
one
exception,
the
tools
and
techniques
that
were
gathered
from
the
conference
were
applied.
The
one
exception
had
to
do
with
a
fifth
generation
language
which
we
tried.
It
was
called
Apjan
and
it
was
a
fifth
generation
application
generator
and
the
product
worked.
The
problem
was
it
was
too
restrictive
in
its
nature
so
it
was
taking
a
relational
database
which
had
an
extreme
amount
of
flexibility
and
it
was
limiting
the
flexibility
and
even
though
the
product
itself
worked
and
the
people
knew
—
the
R&D
programmers
knew
how
to
use
it,
the
decision
was
made
to
discontinue
using
it
because
it
was
restricting
the
flexibility
of
the
Tranfo
software
and
from
a
design
philosophy
point
of
view
we
did
not
want
to
do
that.
We
wanted
to
keep
it
as
open
as
possible
and
one
of
the
innovative
features
of
the
Tranfo
software
was
what
was
called
Parameter
Driven
and
the
fifth
generation
application
generator
was
limiting
our
ability
to
put
everything
in
parameters,
so
it
was
—
it
was
discontinued.
The
other
tools,
the
correlatives,
the
B-trees,
the
assembly
language,
they
became
very
important
parts
of
the
development
process.
Q.
Can
you
give
an
example
of
where
you
actually
used
that
technology
to
make
a
presentation
to
a
customer?
A.
Absolutely.
In
1986
we
were
trying
to
obtain
an
account
with
T
&
T
Texmart.
Q.
Who
is
T
&
T
Texmart?
A.
T
&
T
is
the
single
largest
transportation
company
in
the
world.
They're
based
out
of
Australia.
They
have
the
fourth
largest
merchant
fleet
in
the
entire
world,
fourth
only
to
some
of
the
Arabs.
They
have
more
planes
and
helicopters
than
the
Canadian
government.
They
are
simply
a
massive
corporation.
We
were
shortlisted
on
one
of
their
subsidiaries
in
Mississauga
called
T
&
T
Texport
which
hauls
all
the
textiles
for
Sears
and
Eaton's,
Mark’
Work
Wearhouse,
companies
like
that,
and
we
were
short-listed
with
an
IBM
software
house
out
of
Pennsylvania
and
with
T
&
T's
own
data
processing
group.
T
&
T
North
America
has
a
data
processing
group
and
at
that
time
they
had
about
40
programmers
and
to
—
the
relational
database
technology
was
quite
new
for
the
personnel
at
T
&
T,
who
were
making
the
decision,
so
a
little
exercise
was
developed.
They
laid
out
the
basic
parameters
of
the
type
of
program
that
was
going
to
be
developed
and
the
type
of
output
and
also
the
type
of
changes
that
were
going
to
be
made
to
this
and
their
software
group
came
back
with
an
estimate
that
it
was
going
to
take
roughly
about
two
months
to
deliver
the
end
product
and,
of
course,
at
a
cost
of
thousands
of
dollars
and
Spectron
delivered
the
code
the
next
day
for
this
exercise.
And
based
on
that,
it
was
short-listed
down
to
two,
dropping
their
data
processing
group
out.
The
techniques
that
were
being
used
within
the
Tranfo
software
just
made
it
so
easy
to
change
various
things.
Because
it
was
set
up
in
parameters,
they
could
set
things
up
extremely
quick
and,
using
some
of
the
features,
you
know,
for
example
the
B-trees
and
the
correlatives
and
that,
we
could
develop
software
that
was
very
powerful
extremely
quickly
and
eventually
in
1986
we
won
the
contract,
which
was
a
million-dollar
contract.
[T.
52
1.4
to
1.55
1.12]
Mr.
Figley
further
emphasized
that,
apart
from
interest
in
the
subject
matters
being
presented,
no
commonality
existed
between
the
attendees
of
these
forums.
For
example
they
did
not
share
or
partake
in
any
club
or
organizational
memberships
having
a
common
nature
or
purpose.
He
said
this
kind
of
thing
was
neither
required
nor
contemplated
in
any
way.
However
he
readily
agreed
that
commonality
of
attendees
arose
from
their
interest
in
computers
be
it
as
a
manufacturer
or
as
a
user
or
as
a
professional
technician,
the
latter
of
which
included
the
appellant’s
R&D
personnel
in
relational
database
research.
Both
issues
As
noted
earlier,
the
expenditures
made
for
interest
and
for
the
conferences
were
disallowed
for
ITC
purposes
because
they
were
categorized
by
the
respondent
as
“prescribed
expenditures"
pursuant
to
Regulation
2902
(infra)
and
thus
were
excluded
from
the
definition
of
“
qualified
expenditures”
within
the
meaning
of
subsection
127(9)
of
the
Act.
The
law
For
the
sake
of
simplicity
and
brevity,
only
those
parts
of
the
relevant
legislative
provisions
of
substantive
impact
will
be
reflected.
I
propose
to
elicit
the
enactments
as
they
read
for
the
1985
taxation
year
because
the
significant
parts
of
the
provisions
remained
substantively
the
same
for
all
of
the
appellant's
1983,
1984
and
1985
taxation
years.
The
Act
37(1)
[Scientific
research
and
experimental
development]—Where
a
taxpayer
..
.
.
carried
on
a
business
in
Canada
and
made
expenditures
in
respect
of
scientific
research
and
experimental
development
in
the
year,
there
may
be
deducted
in
computing
his
income
for
the
year
the
amount,
if
any,
by
which
the
aggregate
of
(a)
such
amounts
as
may
be
claimed
by
the
taxpayer
not
exceeding
all
expenditures
of
a
current
nature
made
in
Canada
by
the
taxpayer
in
the
year
.
.
.
(i)
on
scientific
research
and
experimental
development
related
to
the
business
and
directly
undertaken
by
or
on
behalf
of
the
taxpayer
.
.
.
(b)
such
amount
as
may
be
claimed
by
the
taxpayer
not
exceeding
the
lesser
of
(i)
the
expenditures
of
a
capital
nature
made
in
Canada
(by
acquiring
property
other
than
land)
in
the
year
.
.
.
on
scientific
research
and
experimental
development
relating
to
the
business
and
directly
undertaken
by
or
on
behalf
of
the
taxpayer,
and.
.
.
.
37(7)
Definitions
—
In
this
section
(c)
references
to
expenditures
on
or
in
respect
of
scientific
research
and
experimental
development
(ii)
.
.
.
include
only
(A)
expenditures
each
of
which
was
an
expenditure
incurred
for
and
all
or
substantially
all
of
which
was
attributable
to
the
prosecution,
or
to
the
provision
of
premises,
facilities
or
equipment
for
the
prosecution,
of
scientific
research
and
experimental
development
in
Canada.
.
.
.
127(5)
[Investment
tax
credit]
—
There
may
be
deducted
from
the
tax
otherwise
payable
by
a
taxpayer
under
this
Part
for
a
taxation
year
an
amount
equal
to
the
aggregate
of
[Note:
hereafter
the
subprovisions
provide
various
calculations
and
percentages
pertaining
to
a
taxpayer's
"investment
tax
credit"
at
the
year
end.]
127(9)
Definitions
—
In
this
section
investment
tax
credit
of
a
taxpayer
at
the
end
of
a
taxation
year
means
the
amount,
if
any,
by
which
the
aggregate
of
(a)
the
aggregate
of
all
amounts
each
of
which
is
the
specified
percentage
of
.
I
or
the
specified
percentage
of
a
qualified
expenditure
made
by
him
in
the
year,
qualified
expenditure
means
an
expenditure
in
respect
of
scientific
research
and
experimental
development
made
by
a
taxpayer.
.
.
that
qualifies
as
an
expenditure
described
in
paragraph
37(1)(a)
or
subparagraph
37(1)(b)(i),
but
does
not
include
(a)
a
prescribed
expenditure
[Emphasis
added.]
The
Regulations
2902.
For
the
purposes
of
the
definition
“
qualified
expenditure”
in
subsection
127(9)
of
the
Act,
a
prescribed
expenditure
is
(a)
an
expenditure
of
a
current
nature
incurred
by
a
taxpayer
in
respect
of
(i)
the
general
administration
or
management
of
a
business,
including
(A)
an
administrative
salary
or
wages
and
related
benefits
in
respect
of
a
person
whose
duties
are
not
all
or
substantially
all
directed
to
the
prosecution
of
scientific
research
and
experimental
development,
except
to
the
extent
that
such
expenditure
is
described
in
subsection
2900(2)
or
(3),
(B)
a
legal
or
accounting
fee,
(C)
an
amount
described
in
any
of
paragraphs
20(1)(c)
to
(g)
of
the
Act,
(D)
an
entertainment
expense,
(E)
an
advertising
or
selling
expense,
(F)
a
convention
expense,
(G)
a
due
or
fee
in
respect
of
membership
in
a
scientific
or
technical
society
or
organization,
and
(H)
a
fine
or
penalty,
or
(ii)
the
maintenance
and
upkeep
of
premises,
facilities
or
equipment
to
the
extent
that
such
expenditure
is
not
attributable
to
the
prosecution
of
scientific
research,
and
experimental
development,
except
any
such
expenditure
incurred
by
a
corporation
that
derives
all
or
substantially
all
of
its
revenue
from
the
prosecution
of
scientific
research
or
the
sale
of
rights
in
or
arising
out
of
scientific
research
carried
on
by
it;
[Emphasis
added.]
Section
2902
of
the
Regulations
as
it
read
for
the
1983
and
1984
taxation
years
actually
referenced
subsection
127(10.1)
of
the
Act
which
was
numbered
as
subsection
127(9)
for
the
appellant's
1985
taxation
year.
With
respect
to
Regulation
2902(a)(i)(C),
it
was
common
ground
that
only
paragraph
(c)
of
subsection
20(1)
of
the
Act
was
applicable
here
which
was
further
narrowed
to
subparagraph
(i)
and
(ii)
thereof.
It
reads:
20(1)
[Deductions
permitted
in
computing
income
from
business
or
property]
—
Notwithstanding
paragraphs
18(1)(a),
(b)
and
(h),
in
computing
a
taxpayer's
income
for
a
taxation
year
from
a
business
or
property,
there
may
be
deducted
such
of
the
following
amounts
as
are
wholly
applicable
to
that
source
or
such
part
of
the
following
amounts
as
may
reasonably
be
regarded
as
applicable
thereto:
(c)
[interest]
an
amount
paid
in
the
year
or
payable
in
respect
of
the
year
.
.
.
pursuant
to
a
legal
obligation
to
pay
interest
on
(i)
borrowed
money
used
for
the
purpose
of
earning
income
from
a
business
or
property.
.
.
.
(ii)
an
amount
payable
for
property
acquired
for
the
purpose
of
gaining
or
producing
income
therefrom
or
for
the
purpose
of
gaining
or
producing
income
from
a
business.
.
.
.
or
a
reasonable
amount
in
respect
thereof,
whichever
is
the
lesser;
Analysis
This
case
revolves
around
the
correct
interpretation
of
Regulation
2902(a)(i)
which
establishes
those
kinds
of
scientific
research
and
experimental
development
expenses
(hereafter
called
“R&D
expenses")
that
are
excluded
in
the
calculation
of
the
appellant's
investment
tax
credit
('
ITC").
Generally
speaking,
the
ITC
is
an
aggregate
amount
arrived
at
under
subsection
127(5)
of
the
Act
which
is
deductible
from
the
tax
otherwise
payable
by
a
taxpayer
who,
according
to
subsection
37(1),
carried
on
a
business
in
Canada
and
incurred
R&D
expenses
of
a
current
nature
(those
of
a
capital
nature
are
irrelevant
here)
in
respect
of
research
related
to
the
taxpayer's
business.
These
R&D
expenses
exclude
what
has
been
described
as
prescribed"
expenses
as
defined
in
Regulation
2902(a)
which
are
in
respect
of
"the
general
administration
or
management
of
a
business".
The
two
items
thereunder
which
have
been
put
in
dispute
here
are
not
entirely
without
ambiguity.
The
interest
issue
Appellant's
counsel
conceded
the
appropriateness
of
the
interest
disallowance
if
it
was
incurred
for
the
purposes
of
earning
income
within
the
meaning
of
subparagraph
20(1)(c)(i)
or
(ii)
of
the
Act.
He
emphasized,
however,
that
this
was
not
the
purpose
with
respect
to
the
R&D
project
here
in
that
the
interest
liability
arose
out
of
borrowings
made
for
the
purpose
of
financing
the
first
stage
salary
costs
in
the
course
of
this
project
which,
if
achieved,
would
thereafter
be
marketed
for
profit
during
the
second
stage.
A
business
activity
normally
generates
income.
In
contrast,
an
R&D
activity
normally
generates
only
expenses,
not
income.
He
stated
that
Parliament
could
have
easily
targeted
"interest"
as
a
prescribed
expense,
and
if
that
had
been
the
case
the
matter
would
have
been
at
an
end.
However,
having
used
the
words
"an
amount
described
in
any
of
paragraphs
20(1)(c)
to
(g)
of
the
Act"
one
must
go
to
those
provisions
to
determine
the
meaning.
Paragraph
20(1)(c)
is
applicable
here
which
mandates
that
the
use
of
the
borrowed
funds
be
"for
the
purpose
of
earning
income”
from
a
business
or
property.
The
appellant's
R&D
activities
during
the
years
in
question
did
not
fit
that
description,
paragraph
20(1)(c),
does
not
apply
and
hence
the
interest
claimed
here
is
not
a
prescribed
expense
and
should
not
have
been
disallowed.
Respondent's
counsel
pointed
out
that,
but
for
the
R&D
provisions
in
the
Act,
all
R&D
expenditures
with
respect
to
new
product
development
would
normally
have
to
be
capitalized
and
therefore
if
the
interest
expense
is
not
deductible
under
paragraph
20(1)(c)
of
the
Act,
it
is
not
deductible
elsewhere.
The
purpose
of
subparagraph
(C)
in
Regulation
2902(a)(ii)
is
to
disallow
financing
costs
(its
terminology
being
merely
legislative
shorthand)
save
and
except
the
case
where
the
taxpayer
was
deriving
all
or
substantially
all
of
its
revenues
from
its
R&D
operation.
This
was
not
the
case
here,
and
there
is
simply
no
other
avenue
available
to
this
appellant
for
this
kind
of
expense.
In
any
event,
paragraph
20(1)(c)
of
the
Act
is
applicable
to
the
appellant's
situation
in
that
the
interest
arose
out
of
borrowings
used
to
gain
or
produce
income
from
property
i.e.
the
end
product
which
if
successful
would
be
patented
and
then
marketed.
If
the
interest
was
disallowed
on
the
basis
of
no
revenue
being
generated
during
the
years
under
appeal,
it
would
have
been
wrong.
Conclusion
I
conclude
that
the
Minister
properly
disallowed
the
interest
claimed
on
the
basis
that
it
was
a
prescribed
expense
pursuant
to
Regulation
2902(a)(i)(C).
In
my
view
appellant-counsel’s
analysis
and
argument
goes
beyond
simple
ambiguity
which
he
claims
ought
to
be
resolved
in
the
appellant's
favour
pursuant
to
the
established
authorities.
The
ostensible
anomaly
is
resolvable
by
the
contemporary
words-in-total-context
approach
which
has
as
its
focus
the
determination
of
the
object
and
purpose
of
these
provisions.
The
law
is
not
restricted
to
a
literal
and
virtually
meaningless
interpretation
where
the
words
employed
will
support,
on
a
broader
construction,
a
conclusion
which
is
workable
and
in
harmony
with
the
evident
purposes
of
the
Act.
The
Queen
v.
Golden,
[1986]
1
S.C.R.
209,
[1986]
1
C.T.C.
274,
86
D.T.C.
6138
at
pages
214-15
(C.T.C.
277,
D.T.C.
6140).
If
the
ambiguity
cannot
be
resolved
on
this
approach,
then
any
reasonable
doubt
remaining
may
be
resolved
in
the
taxpayer's
favour.
What
was
being
advanced
was
that
since
no
revenue
was
being
derived,
nor
could
possibly
be
derived,
from
the
appellant's
R&D
activities
during
the
period
under
appeal,
paragraph
20(1)(c)
of
the
Act
could
not
be
applicable,
thus
rendering
subparagraph
(C)
of
the
regulation
inapplicable
as
well.
In
my
view
that
analysis
is
circular
and
if
accepted
renders
the
latter
meaningless.
It
also
ignores
the
general
proposition
of
law
that
interest
is
normally
capitalized.
Subsection
248(1)
of
the
Act
defines
property
as
meaning
(I
am
paraphrasing)
property
of
any
kind
whatever
whether
real
or
personal
or
corporeal
or
incorporeal
and
including
a
right
of
any
kind
whatever.
Since
the
appellant's
R&D
project
had
not
derived
any
revenue
but
remained
ancillary
to
its
principal
business
of
trading
in
computers,
subparagraph
(C)
of
the
regulation
is
operative
and
the
amounts
contemplated
therein
are
not
allowable
because
they
were
interest
amounts
arising
from
borrowed
money
used
to
gain
or
produce
income
from
property
within
the
purview
of
paragraph
20(1)(c)
of
the
Act.
That
no
income
was
or
could
have
been
gained
or
produced
at
that
time
from
the
property
being
researched
and
developed
is
not
determinative
because
the
purpose
and
direct
use
of
the
borrowed
funds
was
focused
to
that
end
and
no
issues
were
raised
concerning
the
efficacy
of
the
projects
under
research.
The
above
analysis
and
conclusions
represent
a
workable
solution,
avoid
anomaly
and
are
in
keeping
with
the
legislative
object,
purpose
and
language
of
the
Act
and
the
Regulations.
Even
if
this
approach
may
well
have
stretched
the
statutory
language
employed,
it
avoids
absurdity
and
gives
effect
to
the
obvious
purpose
of
the
provisions
being
interpreted.
The
Queen
v.
Consumers'
Co-Operative
Refineries
Ltd.,
[1987]
2
C.T.C.
204,
87
D.T.C.
5409
(F.C.A.)
at
page
206
(D.T.C.
5411).
Accordingly,
the
appeals
with
respect
to
the
interest
issue
fail.
The
convention
expenses
issue
Counsels’
arguments
moved
in
separate
directions
respecting
the
nature
and
purpose
of
the
conferences
attended
by
the
appellant's
R&D
staff
and
the
meaning
to
be
assigned
to
the
word
“convention”
in
subparagraph
(F)
of
Regulation
2902(a)(i).
Respondent's
counsel
submitted
that
what
was
really
going
on
was
a
threepronged
conference
for
buyers,
users
and
manufacturers
in
a
vacation
type
setting
designed
to
attract
those
people
having
a
common
interest
in
computers.
Thus
he
said
it
was
a"convention"
within
its
ordinary
meaning
in
that
it
encompassed
different
aspects
of
an
underlying
theme
appealing
to
those
having
that
common
interest.
With
respect
to
Interpretation
Bulletin
IT-357R2
dated
November
6,
1989,
it
is
to
be
noted
that
the
preamble
proposes
a
distinction
to
be
made
between
a
training
course
on
the
one
hand
and
a
convention
or
business
meeting
on
the
other,
and
in
paragraph
9
it
avers
that
a
convention
does
not
become
a
training
course
when
some
of
the
sessions
take
the
form
of
workshops.
Counsel
submitted
that
the
whole
matter
here
was
a
convention
and
that
even
if
it
was
a
conference
it
would
be
included
within
the
general
nature
and
parameters
of
administrative
or
management
concerns
and
thus
be
a
prescribed
expense.
Appellant's
counsel
focused
on
the
technical
user
aspect
of
the
program,
that
it
was
the
only
public
forum
available
in
North
America
providing
technical
information
and
training,
and
that
it
lacked
commonality
of
organizational
or
professional
attributes
amongst
the
invitees
which
is
an
essential
characteristic
and
therefore
it
ought
not
be
regarded
as
a
convention.
What
the
appellant's
R&D
employees
attended
was
a
conference,
not
a
convention.
While
conceding
a
convention
does
include
certain
attributes
of
a
conference,
he
urged
the
converse
was
not
true
for
the
basic
reason
that
the
only
commonality
of
its
attendees
was
the
topic
or
subject
matter
of
the
meeting
which
is
often
narrow
in
scope.
He
noted,
as
an
example,
the
obvious
differences
between
an
annual
"convention"
of
Canadian
Bar
Association
lawyers
and
a
"conference"
respecting
treaty
land
entitlements
attended
by
lawyers
plus
perhaps
others
interested
in
that
topic.
A
conference
lacks
organizational
commonality
amongst
its
invitees
and
also
lacks
the
normal
characteristics
attributable
to
matters
of
"general
administrative
or
management"
concerns
normally
arising
out
of
conventions
to
which
Regulation
2902(a)(i)
is
generally
focused.
Conclusion
At
the
outset
Regulation
2902(a)
is
a
definition
provision
which,
by
its
usage
of
the
word
“including”
in
paragraph
(i),
connotates
an
enlargement
from
the
preceding
words
“general
administration
or
management"
expenditures.
Minicom
Data
Corp.
v.
Canada,
[1992]
2
C.T.C.
2196,
92
D.T.C.
1876
(T.C.C.)
at
pages
2198-99
(D.T.C.
1878).
In
other
words,
subparagraph
(F)
is
to
be
interpreted
in
an
expansive
way
rather
than
being
limited
to
whether
it
falls
within
the
general
ambit
of
general
administrative
or
management
aspects
of
a
business.
It
may
encompass
some
of
those
characteristics
but
may
also
include
others
which
are
not
to
be
disregarded.
An
established
principle
of
statutory
interpretation
is
that
where
the
same
word
or
words
are
used
in
different
parts
of
the
same
statute
they
ought
to
be
accorded
the
same
meaning
unless
there
is
an
obvious
reason
for
not
doing
so.
Differing
contexts
or
purposes
attract
caution
and
may
require
departure
from
the
general
rule.
The
subject
matter
of
"conventions"
arose
in
Graves
v.
Canada,
[1990]
1
C.T.C.
357,
90
D.T.C.
6300
(F.C.T.D.)
wherein
the
taxpayers
were
operating
an
independent
distributorship
of
Amway
products
and
in
connection
therewith
attended
networking
meetings
in
the
United
States
designed
to
develop
leadership
skills
germane
to
the
expansion
of
their
business.
In
the
course
of
his
judgment
Mackay,
J.,
at
pages
366-67
(D.T.C.
6307),
noted
that
if
the
meetings
had
attributes
pertaining
to
educational
or
training
sessions
involving
advanced
study
or
testing,
or
formal
curricula
normally
associated
with
training
sessions
to
maintain
or
upgrade
skills
or
knowledge,
the
expenses
incurred
in
connection
therewith
were
likely
allowable
under
paragraph
18(1)(a)
of
the
Act.
That
provision
permits
deductions
for
expenditures
made
or
incurred
for
the
purposes
of
earning
income
from
business
or
property.
Skills
acquired
from
the
meetings
respecting
sales,
marketing
and
networking
were
seen
in
the
nature
of
a
capital
asset
and
not
allowable
as
an
expense
except
within
the
limits
of
subsection
20(10)
of
the
Act.
This
provision
permitted
deductibility,
notwithstanding
its
capital
aspects,
of
expenses
“in
attending,
in
connection
with
the
business,
not
more
than
two
conventions
held
during
the
year
by
a
business
or
professional
organization”.
At
page
367
(D.T.C.
6308)
he
said:
The
word
“convention”
is
not
defined
in
the
Act.
Generally,
a
convention
is
defined
as
being
an
“act
of
convening”;
"formal
assembly”
(Concise
Oxford
Dictionary);
or
as
“an
assembly
or
meeting
of
members
or
representatives
of
political,
legislative,
fraternal,
etc.
organizations”
(Black’s
Law
Dictionary.
5th
Ed.
1979).
In
this
case,
the
plaintiffs
attended
meetings
arranged
by
their
particular
line
of
distributorship
which
involved
the
assembly
or
convening
of
members
of
the
distributorship
line.
They
were
not
loose
gatherings
of
people.
They
were
organized
in
order
to
bring
together
members
of
the
line
of
distributorship,
and
other
interested
persons,
for
business
purposes.
In
my
view
these
gatherings
could
be
categorized
best,
under
the
Income
Tax
Act,
as
conventions.
[Emphasis
added.]
Mackay,
J.
went
on
to
note
some
of
the
jurisprudence
on
this
subject
matter
emanating
out
of
the
Tax
Court,
adding
at
page
367
(D.T.C.
6308),
that
a
"convention"
under
subsection
20(10)
could
include
matters
of
its
nature,
structure
and
organization,
its
relationship
to
the
taxpayer’s
business,
its
location,
its
purposes
and
possibly
its
frequency
of
occurrence.
For
the
Graves
situation,
the
finding
was
that
the
Amway
meetings
were
conventions
within
the
meaning
of
subsection
20(10)
of
the
Act.
It
is
obvious
that
the
issue
is
one
of
fact.
And
I
agree
with
appellantcounsel's
submission
that
convention
includes
conference,
but
not
necessarily
the
reverse.
There
is
a
difference;
it
is
subtle,
but
nonetheless
vital
to
the
appellant.
The
French
wording
in
subparagraph
(F)
of
the
Regulation
uses
the
term
"congrès"
which,
according
to
Harrap's
New
Standard
French
and
English
Dictionary,
means
"(a)
congress;
(b)
c.
de
l’enseignement,
etc.,
educational,
etc.,
congress
or
conference".
The
word
"congress"
in
the
Oxford
English
Dictionary
(2nd
Ed.)
means
“going
or
coming
together,
meeting.
A
formal
meeting
or
assembly
of
delegates
or
representatives
for
the
discussion
or
settlement
of
some
question.
.
.
.
Also
an
annual
or
periodical
meeting
or
series
of
meetings
of
some
association
or
society,
or
of
persons
engaged
in
special
studies".
I
have
purposefully
emphasized
the
above
words
to
highlight
that
congrès
includes
a
conference,
that
it
includes
people
who
are
delegates
or
representatives
and
that
the
meetings
may
be
annual
or
periodical
or
a
series
of
some
association
or
society.
Accordingly,
the
French
version
presupposes
some
form
of
commonality
respecting
both
participants
and
purpose.
Both
are
present
in
the
English
dictionary
definitions
of
convention,
but
the
former
appears
only
once
in
the
two
dictionary
definitions
of
conference.
convention
—
the
summoning
or
convening
of
an
assembly;
an
assembly
of
persons
met
for
a
common
purpose;
esp:
a
meeting
of
the
delegates
of
a
political
party
for
the
purpose
of
formulating
a
platform.
.
.
.
(Dictionary
source
not
identified
by
counsel.)
—
an
assembly
or
gathering
of
persons
for
some
common
object;
esp.
a
formal
assembly
met
for
deliberation
or
legislation
on
important
matters,
ecclesiastical,
political
or
social.
(The
Oxford
English
Dictionary,
2nd
Ed.)
conference
—
formal
interchange
of
views;
a
meeting
of
two
or
more
persons
for
discussing
matters
of
common
concern.
(Dictionary
source
not
identified
by
counsel.)
—
a
formal
meeting
for
consultation
or
discussion;
e.g.
between
representatives
of.
.
.
societies,
parties,
etc.
(The
Oxford
English
Dictionary,
2nd
Ed.)
The
upshot
of
the
above
is
that
if
any
assembly
or
gathering
portrays
a
commonality
of
purpose
(which
is
what
we
have
here)
and
a
commonality
of
participants
(which
does
not
exist
here
except
peripherally
through
their
general
interest
in
computer
technology)
it
will,
prima
facie,
be
a
convention.
Anything
short
of
that
will
more
than
likely
be
a
conference
which
is
what
occurred
here.
In
Graves,
supra,
it
was
noted
that
the
participants
were
"not
loose
gatherings
of
people”.
The
meetings
attended
and
the
study
path
chosen
was
for
its
technical
information
which
was
focused
on
relational
databases.
While
they
may
not
have
been
training
courses
per
se,
they
were
the
most
appropriate
and
the
best
available
resources
at
the
time
to
serve
the
appellant’s
needs
for
technical
education
and
knowledge.
Of
the
three
pathways
available,
the
yellow
one
was
the
only
one
targeted
because
it
was
designed
specifically
for
the
programmer,
the
engineer
and
the
systems
analyst
professional.
The
fact
that
product
updates
may
have
been
introduced
to
those
participating
in
this
path
would
be
unavoidable,
and
in
any
event
was
not
their
principal
need
or
focus.
Further,
it
is
appropriate
to
note
that
the
technical
path
would
literally
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
usual
aspects
of
administration
or
management
of
a
business
and
that
only
the
professional
R&D
staff
had
attended.
I
conclude
that
the
expenditures
claimed
by
the
appellant
respecting
the
software
conferences
attended
in
the
Unites
States
by
its
R&D
staff
during
its
1984
and
1985
taxation
years
were
not
prescribed
expenditures
within
the
meaning
of
Regulation
2902(a)(i)(F).
ITC
Expenses
allowable
by
settlement
of
the
parties
As
mentioned
in
the
opening
part
of
these
reasons,
counsel
had
come
to
an
agreement
respecting
partial
settlement
of
all
of
the
other
items
which
were
originally
put
in
contention
in
these
appeals.
It
was
as
follows:
For
the
1983
taxation
year,
expenses
totalling
$8,267.72
are
allowable
for
purposes
of
calculating
the
appellant's
ITC
and
concurrently
are
disallowed
as
deductions
for
the
purposes
of
calculating
income
for
that
year
with
the
balance
of
the
expense
claims
advanced
by
the
appellant,
(except
for
interest)
being
withdrawn.
For
the
1984
taxation
year,
ITC
expenses
allowable
under
identical
circumstances
total
$21,465.28
with
the
balance,
(except
for
the
interest
and
conferences)
being
withdrawn.
For
the
1985
taxation
year,
ITC
expenses
allowable,
again
under
identical
circumstances,
total
$48,191.56
with
the
balance
(except
for
interest
and
conferences)
being
withdrawn.
Conclusion
In
accordance
with
these
reasons
for
judgment
and
the
parties'
settlement,
the
appeals
are
allowed
and
the
matters
are
referred
back
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment
on
the
basis
that
for
each
taxation
year
the
following
expenses
are
to
be
allowed
for
the
purposes
of
calculating
the
appellant's
investment
tax
credit
for
that
year
and
correspondingly
are
to
be
deducted
for
the
purposes
of
calculating
the
appellant's
income
for
that
year:
1983
|
$
8,267.72
|
1984
|
$24,550.47
|
1985
|
$52,946.35
|
The
appellant
is
entitled
to
its
costs
on
a
party-to-party
basis.
Appeal
allowed
in
part.