Regulation 1012-14.2(2)
Articles
Walter Gardisch, "ABC's of ORST and ERP", GST & Commodity Tax, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, January/February 2004, p. 5.
Robert Kreklewetz, Brent Murray, "Ontario Software Changes 2002 - Another Nail in the Coffin", GST & Commodity Tax, Vol. XVI, No. 7, September/October 2002, p. 49.
Regulation 1013-13(1)
Articles
Beverley McDonald, "Retail Sales Tax Relief Where Transfers Between Related Parties", Ontario Tax Reporter, August 2002, No. 483, p. 1.
Subsection 7(1)2
Articles
J. Brakel, "It's Covered Under Warranty: Sales Tax is on Warranty Cost, Part II", GST & Commodity Tax, Vol. XIII, No. 2, March 1999, p. 11.
Subsection 2(6)
See Also
Extendicare International Inc. v. Minister of Revenue (2000), 47 OR (3d) 1 (CA)
Damages received by the taxpayer in settlement of the default of the lessee under a lease by the taxpayer of computer equipment were not payments received in respect of the "consumption or use" of tangible personal property and were instead received by it for its acceptance of breach and repudiation of the lease. Accordingly, the payments were not subject to tax.
Subsection 2(9)
Cases
Ontario Hydro v. Minister of Revenue (1999), 44 OR (3d) 1 (C.A.)
Ontario Hydro paid Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. for its services in designing replacement tubes and tools for one of its nuclear reactors in addition to purchasing the tubes and tools directly from manufacturers. The Minister's addition of such charges to the cost of the purchased property was found to be permitted by what then was s. 2(7) of the Retail Sales Tax Act.
Subsection 2(18)
See Also
Canpotex Ltd. v. The Queen (2001), 193 DLR (4th) 498 (BCCA)
The taxpayer leased railway cars for the purpose of transporting potash from Saskatchewan to British Columbia for unloading and export, with most of the rail cars returning empty to Saskatchewan to be loaded again. S.21(1)(b) of the Social Service Tax Act (BC) imposed tax on "a person who uses in British Columbia in the course of the person's business, whether or not the person's business is carried on in British Columbia, tangible personal property that the person has leased, as lessee".
This provision was found not to apply to the appellant on the ground that it was the railways and not the appellant that had possession of the rail cars while they were in British Columbia, and that while the rail cars were leased to the appellant, they were not used by it in the Province of British Columbia.