Section 201

See Also

BH Parkway Place Ltd. v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 7 (Informal Procedure)

$74K SUV used for transporting goods was not subject to $30K cap

The appellant (“BH Parkway”) purchased an SUV (Mercedez Benz ML 350), for $73,057.60 including taxes. D'Auray J accepted (at para. 44) the evidence of BH Parkway’s principal (who was in his 80s) that he had acquired this vehicle so "that he could get in and out of without too much difficulty and at the same time ensuring that it could carry a large quantity of material,” and that “the vehicle was left at the place of business most of the time” and used to transport goods (as contrasted to his two other vehicles which he used for personal use.)

D'Auray J stated (at para. 41) that under the definition of “automobile” in ITA s. 248(1) (which, in turn, informed the meaning of “passenger vehicle” in ETA ss. 123(1) and 201):

[A]n automobile does not include a motor vehicle that is a van or pick–up truck, or a similar vehicle that is used all or substantially all for the transportation of goods, equipment or passengers in the course of gaining or producing income. A SUV is recognized by the Canada Revenue Agency as a similar vehicle.

Given her findings that the SUV was used substantially all for gaining business income, it followed that BH Parkway was entitled to claim input tax credits for its purchase without limitation by s. 201.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 182 - Subsection 182(1) a statutory penalty received by a landlord from a defaulted tenant was not subject to s. 182 206
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Automobile - Paragraph (e) - Subparagraph (e)(ii) a Mercedes SUV used in transporting goods was not an automobile 105

Scarlet Nelson/ Larry Nelson v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 223 (Informal Procedure)

The registrant acquired a passenger vehicle for $50,000, whose capital cost to the registrant for GST purposes was limited to $30,000, pursuant to s. 201. Woods J. disallowed ITCs on the vehicle, on the basis that the vehicle's commercial use was not "exclusive" as defined in s. 123(1). The registrant's business usage was only 54%, which was clearly not " all or substantially all" of the use of the vehicle. The registrant's argument, that the deemed cost was reduced to 60% of actual cost, and that 54% usage was 90% of this reduced amount, was irrelevant to the question of whether there was exclusive commercial use.