Airtel Communications Ltd. v. The Queen,  1 CTC 514 (NBQB)
S.4.3(1) of the Income Tax Act (N.B.) provided a small business deduction to a corporation where the income of it and all associated Canadian-controlled private corporations from Canadian active businesses were "in the aggregate $110,000 or less". In finding that the taxpayer (which had income of $111,884) was not entitled to take into account the loss of an associated corporation of $11,281, Dickson J. stated (p. 517):
"The word 'aggregate' in general usage connotes 'total' or 'sum total'. In the context in which it is used in subsection 4.3(1) it is, in my view, apparent that the Legislature intended that it should here have that connotation, viz, that what was to be aggregated was the total of the income of the principal corporation plus the income of any Canadian-controlled associated private corporation. If the associated corporation suffered a loss, viz, enjoyed no income, then there could be no income to be added to that of the principal corporation by which a 'total' or an 'aggregate' could be obtained which would differ from the income of the principal corporation."
Canterra Energy Ltd. v. The Queen, 87 DTC 5019,  1 CTC 89 (FCA)
Prior to the introduction of s. 257, the word "minus" in what was then regulation 1207(2)(a)(ii) was held to have been used in its algebraic sense, with the result that the amount determined for the taxpayer pursuant to that regulation was a negative amount. Since regulation 1207(2)(a) was in essence a formula, the word "minus" should be interpreted in its mathematical sense.
|Locations of other summaries||Wordcount|
|Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Ordinary Meaning||57|
|Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Resolving Ambiguity||63|