Presidential MSH Corp. – Tax Court of Canada finds that a definition of a noun referenced a remotely-placed verb

In the face of some submissions not made in Tawa, Graham J. revisited the question as to whether the refundable dividend tax account of a taxpayer is reduced by amounts which the taxpayer could have claimed, but failed to timely claim, as dividend refunds. S. 129(1) provides that the Minister "may...refund...an amount (...[the] "dividend refund"...) equal to [a formula amount]." Notwithstanding that "refund" is first used here as a verb (see also IA, s. 33(3)), Graham J found that the defined term refers to a refund of the formula amount, rather than to the formula amount whether or not refunded, so that the taxpayer’s RDTOH was not reduced by unclaimed dividend refunds. Although "dividend refund" was used inconsistently in the Act, he agreed with the purposive analysis in Tawa.

Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Presidential MSH Corporation v. The Queen, 2015 DTC 1101, 2015 TCC 61 under s. 129(1) and Statutory Interpretation - Interpretation Provisions.