Know-How and Training

Cases

International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd. v. MNR, 71 DTC 5332 (FCTD)

The taxpayer made continual outlays on scientific research carried out by its personnel in order to identify improvements to its methods for processing ores. In accepting the taxpayer's position that these expenditures (which were deducted by it under s. 72 of the pre-1972 Act) were not deductible from its resource profits for purposes of the depletion allowance. After asserting that "if a patent is obtained the patent will represent a capital asset" (p. 5349), Cattanach J. went on to state that he was "unable to distinguish between an expenditure on scientific research which results in a patent and a similar expenditure which does not result in a patent but does result in the accumulation of a store of new knowledge upon which the appellant can draw and does draw to keep itself to the forefront of the particular trade in which it is engaged" (p. 5349).

See Also

Setchell v. The Queen, 2006 DTC 2279, 2006 TCC 37 (Informal Procedure)

Before going on to find that an individual who had been making serious and continuing efforts to establish a business of providing for personal software services (albeit unsuccessful to date) was entitled to deduct the costs of a four-week course she took with an enterprise software company in order to upgrade her skills, Woods J. stated (at p.2281):

"The general principle is that training costs will be deductible as a current expense if they are incurred to maintain, update or upgrade an already existing skill or qualification."

Shaver v. The Queen, 2003 DTC 2112, 2004 TCC 10

Expenses incurred by the taxpayer, an Amway distributor, in attending "business training seminars" (characterized by the court as conventions) in Canada and the U.S. were found to be on capital account given that "the acquisition of new skills and increased knowledge by the attendees forms an integral part of those seminars" (p. 2119).

Shaw Flexible Tubes v. MNR, 68 DTC 443 (TAB)

The taxpayer agreed with a U.S. corporation ("Moore") that in consideration for an exclusive licence for the use in Canada by the taxpayer of Moore's technical information respecting methods for manufacturing and producing flexible tubes, the taxpayer would pay $25,000 on signing plus an additional formula royalty based on its sales from the related products. In finding that the $25,000 initial payment was a capital expenditure, Mr. Davis noted that no portion of this amount was refundable by Moore if the agreement were terminated, and that it was clear that the payment was not based on the use made of the information.

British Sugar Manufacturers, Ltd. v. Harris (1937), 21 TC 528 (C.A.)

The taxpayer agreed to pay 20% of its net profits to other corporations in consideration for their provision of managerial services and advice on technical matters. In finding the payments by the taxpayer to be deductible as "money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade", Sir Greene, M.R. noted that although where a person purchases a share of profits, a payment of profits to that person will not be deductible, here "it is not cash that passes in exchange for these profits; it is services, and the badge of such a contract is remuneration for services ..." (p. 546).

Administrative Policy

6 October 2017 APFF Roundtable, Q.12

convention expenses "historically" viewed as capital expenditures

CRA stated:

Where a taxpayer has incurred expenses related to a convention in order to earn income from a business and such expenses are not capital expenditures, such expenses may be deductible in computing its business income without reference to subsection 20(10).

Historically, the CRA's position with respect to convention expenses is that such expenditures are generally capital expenditures to which paragraph 18(1)(b) applies.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 20 - Subsection 20(10) convention expenses “historically” have been viewed as capital expenditures 107