Search - considered

The Queen, 92 DTC 6129, [1992] 1 CTC 26 (FCA)-- summary under Ordinary Meaning Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Ordinary Meaning After noting that the statement in the Sussex Peerage case (that "if the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense") could "no longer be considered as a satisfactory statement of the law" (p. 6132), MacGuigan J.A. found that the word "cable" should be considered to be an "open-textured" term which therefore could include devices which were not contemplated at the time of the enactment of the relevant provision, i.e., fibre optic cables. ...

Canada (National Revenue), 2015 FCA 178-- summary under Paragraph 172(3)(a.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 172- Subsection 172(3)- Paragraph 172(3)(a.1) no implied procedural rules in s. 172(3)(a.1) Before confirming the reasonableness of CRA's decision to revoke the Appellant's registration, Ryer JA rejected a submission (at para. 42) that s. 172(3)(a.1) required the Minister to deliver a complete record of of all documents and materials available to the Appeals Directorate as well as those actually considered, stating (at paras. 47-48): This paragraph simply provides a right of appeal from the Confirmation Decision…. ... Accepting the Appellant's argument would have the effect of construing paragraph 172(3)(a.1) so as to implicitly provide the procedural outcome that Justice Sharlow rejected when she considered Rules 317 and 318, the directly applicable procedural dispositions. ...

Sarraf considered that a court appeal was a mere continuation of proceedings which had been commenced against the corporation by the Minister’s assessment – but Dawson JA found that Sarraf had failed to consider that the current appeal procedures were quite different from the Income War Tax Act procedures considered in a yet earlier decision. ...

Green, 2017 FCA 107-- summary under Paragraph 111(1)(e) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 111- Subsection 111(1)- Paragraph 111(1)(e) upper-tier LP not required to compute income and therefore not subject to s. 111(1)(e) CRA considered that business losses incurred by lower tier partnerships (the PSLPs) were deemed to be limited partnership losses of an upper-tier LP (MLP) – which meant that they were effectively trapped in MLP given that s. 111 (and, thus, the ability to deduct limited partnership losses under s. 111(1)(e)) was only available to a taxpayer and not to a partnership such as MLP. Webb JA rejected this interpretation and considered that the PSLP business losses were also business losses rather than limited partnership losses in the hands of MLP, so that such losses could be allocated to the MLP partners in the same manner as if they had been generated in a single-tier LP. ...

Therefore, for U.S. tax purposes, GL&V LP was considered to have made loans directly to, and received interest directly from, Holdings. ... On the other hand, if (on a broader construction) the U.S. taxes were considered to be paid in respect of such dividends because those dividends were indirectly derived from the interest paid by Holdings, the US taxes should be considered to be paid by the taxpayer in respect of the dividend income sourced from the LLC (a foreign affiliate), so that the foreign affiliate exclusion in (ii) above applied. ...

The Court reversed the Tax Court, where Miller J. found that in determining the amount of the 1991 loss that was available to be deducted by the taxpayer in 1993, the Minister was entitled and required to apply the ordering provisions of s. 11(3), so that the amount of the 1991 loss that should be considered to have been utilized by the taxpayer in its 1989 taxation year was higher than the $5.8 million originally considered by the taxpayer to have been so applied. ...

., 2004 DTC 6475, 2004 FCA 234-- summary under Subsection 248(10) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(10) a transaction with an independent purpose and existence nonetheless can form part of a common law series Normal course dividends paid by two public corporations (“CU” and “CUH”) which gave rise to a Part IV tax refund were considered part of the series of transactions that included s. 85(3) deemed to be received by CU and CUH in connection with a reorganization of another public company (“ATCOR”) and an acquisition by a third party (“Forest”) because, although they had an independent purpose and existence, they were part of the series of transactions that included such deemed dividends received by CU and CUH, and were appropriately assessed pursuant to s. 55(2). Rothstein JA stated (at paras. 65, 67): If the parties intend that a transaction with an independent purpose and existence will assist in achieving this composite result [of it and other transactions] and have the ability to ensure that the independent transaction is carried out and the transaction is in fact carried out, the independent transaction will be considered a part of the series. … The facts that CU and CUH intended to use both the ATCOR/Forest transactions and the normal course dividends to achieve their tax avoidance objective, that they had the ability to ensure that all the transactions would occur, and that all the transactions did indeed occur as intended are sufficient to constitute them all part of a common law series for the purposes of subsection 55(2). ...

. … It is true that the Minister’s delegate considered whether the accrual of interest on the appellants’ unpaid taxes for the period in issue was due to circumstances that were beyond the taxpayers’ control …. ... While no explicit reference was made to paragraph 26(a) of the Information Circular in the Minister’s delegate’s decision, a review of that decision reveals that the appellants’ submissions with respect to processing delays on the part of the CRA were carefully considered by the Minister’s delegate. ... He considered the appellants’ submissions and explained why he was not persuaded that any additional relief was warranted …. ...

First, the Tax Court considered that the phrase “in the course of a commercial activity” entails an either/or test (whereas instead it did not matter that PC Bank paid those amounts in the course of its financial services business because they were also paid in the course of its commercial activity of “driving customers to Loblaws” (para. 24)). ... In the course of his extended dissenting reasons, Webb JA stated (at para. 125): Just as the scheme of the ETA does not contemplate that 100% of a particular property or service that is acquired can be considered to be used in both a commercial activity and a business of making exempt supplies, Parliament did not intend that 100% of a single payment that is made could be considered to be made in both the course of a commercial activity and in the making of exempt supplies. ...

" It considered that it was contrary to the principle of “tax neutrality” that the consequences of the activities should be affected by whether or not they were unlawful and on which province they took place. Montigny JA considered these contentions to be contrary to s. 8.1 of the Interpretation Act, which provided that a federal provision referencing property law rules should reference those of the applicable province “unless otherwise provided by law.” ...