Date: 20000914
Docket: A-667-97
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
ROBERT PHÉNIX
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NOËL J.A.
[1] This appeal raises the issue of whether the cost of acquiring certain "depreciable" property used by the Radisson mining company for exploration work constitutes "Canadian exploration expenses" within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63. If it does, the appellant concedes that the Radisson mining company renounced its deduction in favour of the Radisson limited partnership and, that the respondent, who was a member of the partnership, was entitled to claim his share of the deduction in computing his income for the taxation year 1987.
[2] In a well-reasoned decision dated August 28, 1997, Judge Archambault of the Tax Court of Canada answered the above question in the affirmative. The appellant contends that Judge Archambault interpreted the Act in isolation and without regard to its legislative context.
[3] The provision that lies at the heart of the argument reads as follows:
66.1(6)(a) "Canadian exploration expense" of a taxpayer means any expense incurred after May 6, 1974 that is
. . .
(iii) any expense incurred by him (other than an expense incurred in drilling or completing an oil or gas well or in building a temporary access road to, or preparing a site in respect of, any such well) for the purpose of determining the existence, location, extent or quality of a mineral resource in Canada including any expense incurred in the course of
(A) prospecting,
(B) carrying out geological, geophysical or geochemical surveys,
(C) drilling by rotary, diamond, percussion or other methods, or
(D) trenching, digging test pits and preliminary sampling,
but not including
(E) any Canadian development expense, or
(F) any expense that may reasonably be considered to be related to a mine that has come into production in reasonable commercial quantities or to be related to a potential or actual extension thereof,
(iii.1) any expense incurred by him after November 16, 1978 for the purpose of bringing a new mine in a mineral resource in Canada into production in reasonable commercial quantities and incurred before the coming into production of the new mine, including
(A) clearing, removing overburden and stripping, and
(B) sinking a mine shaft, constructing an adit or other underground entry,
. . .
but, for greater certainty, shall not include
(vi) any consideration given by the taxpayer for any share or any interest therein or right thereto, except as provided by subparagraph (v), or
(vii) any expense described in subparagraph (v) incurred by any other taxpayer to the extent that the expense was,
(A) by virtue of that subparagraph, a Canadian exploration expense of that other taxpayer,
(B) by virtue of subparagraph 66.2(5)(a)(v), a Canadian development expense of that other taxpayer, or
(C) by virtue of subparagraph 66.4(5)(a)(iii), a Canadian oil and gas property expense of that other taxpayer,
but any assistance that a taxpayer has received or is entitled to receive after May 25, 1976 in respect of or related to his Canadian exploration expense shall not reduce the amount of any of the expenses described in any of subparagraphs (I) to (v);
[my emphasis]
|
66.1(6)a) "frais d'exploration au Canada " d'un contribuable s'entend des dépenses suivantes engagées après le 6 mai 1974:
[...]
(iii) une dépense engagée par le contribuable (à l'exception d'une dépense engagée pour le forage ou l'achèvement d'un puits de pétrole ou de gaz, la construction d'une route d'accès temporaire au puits ou la préparation d'un emplacement pour le puits) en vue de déterminer l'existence, la localisation, l'étendue ou la qualité d'une ressource minérale au Canada, y compris
(A) les frais de prospection,
(B) les frais d'études géologiques, géophysiques ou géochimiques,
(C) les frais de forage au moyen d'un appareil rotatif ou à diamant, par battage ou d'autres méthodes, ou
(D) les frais de creusage de tranchées, de creusage de trous d'exploration et d'échantillonnage préliminaire,
à l'exclusion
(E) des frais d'aménagement au Canada, ou
(F) d'une dépense qu'il est raisonnable de considérer comme rattachée soit à une mine qui a commencé à produire des quantités commerciales raisonnables, soit à un prolongement potentiel ou réel de cette mine,
(iii.1) une dépense engagée par le contribuable après le 16 novembre 1978 en vue d'amener une nouvelle mine de ressources minérales au Canada au stade de la production en quantités commerciales raisonnables, mais avant que cette nouvelle mine ne commence cette production, y compris
(A) les frais de déblaiement, d'enlèvement des terrains de couverture et de dépouillement,
(B) les frais de creusage d'un puits de mine, la construction d'une galerie à flanc de couteau ou d'une autre entrée souterraine,
[...]
il est entendu toutefois que sont exclues
(vi) une contrepartie donnée par le contribuable pour une action ou un droit y afférent, sauf dans le cas prévu au sous-alinéa (v),
(vii) une dépense visée au sous-alinea (v) et engagée par un autre contribuable dans la mesure où cette dépense consistait, selon le cas, en
(A) frais d'exploration au Canada engagés par cet autre contribuable, en vertu de ce sous-alinéa,
(B) frais d'aménagement au Canada engagés par cet autre contribuable, en vertu du sous-alinéa 66.2(5)a)(v),
(C) frais à l'égard de biens canadiens relatifs au pétrole et au gaz engagés par cet autre contribuable, en vertu du sous-alinéa 66.4(5)a)(iii);
cependant, aucun montant à titre d'aide qu'un contribuable a reçu ou est en droit de recevoir après le 25 mai 1976 concernant ses frais d'exploration au Canada ou s'y rapportant ne peut réduire une dépense visée à l'un des sous-alinéas (I) à (v);
[mon souligné]
|
[4] We are not satisfied that Judge Archambault erred either in his approach or in his conclusions. In his view, the provision at issue was clear and unequivocal, and we are of the same opinion.
[5] The appellant urges us to read into the provision policy statements which are simply not there. The recent comments on this issue by the Supreme Court of Canada in 65302 British Columbia Ltd. v. Canada are precisely on point:
In discussing this case, P.W. Hogg and J.E. Magee, while correctly acknowledging that the context and purpose of a statutory provision must always be considered, comment that "[i]t would introduce intolerable uncertainty into the Income Tax Act if clear language in a detailed provision of the Act were to be qualified by unexpressed exceptions derived from a court's view of the object and purpose of the provision": Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law 2nd ed., 1997 at pp. 475-76. This is not an endorsement of a literalist approach to statutory interpretation, but a recognition that in applying the principles of interpretation to the Act, attention must be paid to the fact that the Act is one of the most detailed, complex, and comprehensive statutes in our legislative inventory and courts should be reluctant to embrace unexpressed notions of policy or principle in the guise of statutory interpretation.
[6] Like the Trial Judge, we are of the view that if Parliament had wanted to exclude capital expenditures relating to "depreciable" property from paragraph 66.1(6)(a), it would have limited the meaning to be given to the word "expense" accordingly.
[7] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
MARC NOËL
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
Date: 2000912
Docket: A-667-97
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 12th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DESJARDINS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NOËL
In the matter of the Income Tax Act
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND
ROBERT PHÉNIX
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Alice Desjardins
J.A.
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
Date: 20000914
Docket: A-667-97
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
ROBERT PHÉNIX
Respondent
Judgment delivered from the bench
at Montréal, Quebec, Tuesday, September 12, 2000
Reasons given at Montréal, Quebec, on Thursday, September 14, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-667-97
STYLE OF CAUSE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
ROBERT PHÉNIX
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 12, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE NOËL
CONCURRED IN BY: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DESJARDINS
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU
DATED: September 14, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Jane Meagher for the appellant
Yves Ouellette for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson for the respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Date: 2000914
Docket: A-667-97
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
ROBERT PHÉNIX
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER