O
’Connor,
J.:—This
is
an
appeal
from
the
decision
of
the
Provincial
Treasurer
affirming
the
assessment
for
Income
Tax
of
the
Company
at
7%
on
the
net
taxable
income
during
the
last
quarter
of
1936,
viz.,
$5010.94.
The
company’s
fiseal
year
ends
on
Semptember
30th.
Prior
to
1938
the
rate
of
taxation
was
5%
but
by
chapter
20
of
the
Statutes
of
Alberta,
1938,
the
rate
was
increased
to
7%.
Section
16
provides
in
part
that:
“16
.
.
.
.
the
amendments
made
by
.
.
.
.
shall
be
retroactive
so
as
to
apply
to
all
income
for
the
year
1937.”
Year
is
defined
unless
the
context
requires
a
contrary
meaning,
by
See.
2,
subsection
(f).
"‘(f)
‘Year’
means
the
calendar
year.
There
is
nothing
in
the
immediate
context
to
require
a
contrary
meaning
but
counsel
for
the
Provincial
Treasurer
relies
on
sec.
34,
subsec.
2,
added
in
1935,
viz:
“34
(2)
Notwithstanding
the
provisions
of
section
32
of
this
Act,
any
corporation
or
joint
stock
company
whose
fiscal
year
ends
upon
some
day
other
than
the
thirty-first
day
of
December,
shall
make
a
return
within
three
months
from
the
day
upon
which
its
fiscal
year
ends,
and
the
tax
shall
be
computed
in
the
manner
prescribed
by
this
Act,
mutatis
mutandis,
as
if
the
fiscal
year
of
the
corporation
or
joint
stock
company
had
ended
on
the
thirty-
first
day
of
December
after
the
day
upon
which
that
fiscal
year
ends.”
He
quotes
particularly
the
words
‘‘and
the
tax
shall
be
computed
in
the
manner
prescribed
by
this
Act
mutatis
mutandis,
as
if
the
iscal
year
had
ended
on
the
31st
day
of
December.
’
’
Counsel
for
the
company
interprets
"‘in
the
manner’’
as
referring
to
procedure,
that
is
I
suppose
without
allowance
for
depletion
as
provided
in
sec.
5,
subsec.
5,
or
the
deductions
excluded
by
sec.
6,
a
payment
of
one-quarter
of
the
tax
to
accompany
the
return
as
provided
by
section
47
&c.
He
further
points
out
that
when
the
rate
was
changed
in
1936
the
increased
rate
was
expressly
made
to
apply
to
income
for
any
period
terminating
in
1935
and
in
any
subsequent
year,
and
that
in
all
changes
of
rate
in
the
Dominion
Act
the
increased
rate
is
expressly
made
to
apply
to
income
for
any
period
terminating
after
March
3lst.
It
seems
unlikely
that
the
Legislature
would
apply
the
higher
rate
for
the
entire
year
to
a
company
the
fiscal
year
of
which
ended
on
January
5th,
1937,
while
exempting
other
companies
the
fiscal
year
of
which
ended
on
December
31st,
1936.
It
may
be
the
company
could
in
October,
1936,
have
changed
its
fiscal
year
to
end
December
31st
making
a
partial
return
for
the
last
quarter
of
1936
and
if
so
it
would
have
paid
the
lower
rate.
All
these
considerations
are
merely
speculative,
however.
In
the
result
it
is
difficult
to
say
whether
the
Legislature
intended
the
higher
rate
to
apply
not
only
to
1937
income
as
expressly
stated
but
also
as
to
income
for
any
period
terminating
in
1937.
Mr.
Gray
refers
to
Craie’s
Statute
Law,
4th
Ed.
at
p.
109,
as
authority
for
the
statement
that
there
is
no
rule
requiring
taxing
statutes
to
be
strictly
construed
but
it
is
clear
that
retroactive
Legislation
is
in
a
different
position.
In
Schmidt
v.
Ritz,
31
S.C.R.
602,
the
Chief
Justice
(Sir
Henry
Strong)
said
(page
605)
:
“The
well
known
rule
that
retrospective
statutes
especially
such
as
divest
vested
rights
are
to
receive
a
restrictive
construction
is
too
well
established
to
permit
any
larger
interpretation
than
that
which
I
attribute
to
the
words
according
to
their
strict
grammatical
construction.
“That
the
legislature
had
demonstrated
an
intention
to
enact
retrospectively
to
a
certain
extent
is
not
sufficient
to
warrant
a
retroactive
operation
carried
beyond
the
meaning
of
the
terms
used
strictly
construed.”
The
subject
is
not
to
be
taxed
upon
refinements
or
otherwise
than
by
clear
words.
Commissioner
of
Stamps
v.
Munro,
[1933]
3
W.W.R.
at
910.
I
find
the
rate
applicable
to
the
income
for
the
last
quarter
of
1936
is
5%.
I
allow
the
appeal
with
costs.
Email this Content