Cases
Bank of Nova Scotia v. Canada, 2024 FCA 192
In rejecting a submission of the taxpayer that s. 161(7)(b)(iv) was inapplicable to the computation of interest in the situation where its request to carryback a loss to an earlier year was in response to a proposed audit adjustment for the earlier year rather than the situation of a carryback request not being prompted by an unforeseeable adjustment, Woods JA found that, given that “Parliament seeks certainty, predictability and fairness in tax legislation … [i]f Parliament did not intend to impose interest when a loss carryback is claimed as a result of an audit adjustment, it is likely that Parliament would have provided for this with explicit language” (para. 39).
Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
---|---|---|
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 161 - Subsection 161(7) - Paragraph 161(7)(b) - Subparagraph 161(7)(b)(iv) | interest on an audit adjustment accrued up to the time that the taxpayer, learning of the adjustment, requested a loss carryback to offset it | 408 |
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - French and English Version | “as a consequence of” interpreted in light of the shared meaning of the French and English versions | 229 |
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 111 - Subsection 111(1) - Paragraph 111(1)(a) | Minister has the discretion to reject a loss carryback request | 137 |
Foix v. Canada, 2023 FCA 38
After finding that s. 84(2) extended to the indirect distribution of liquid assets of the target to the taxpayers through its sale to an arm’s length purchaser cum “facilitator” for cash proceeds, Noël C.J. stated (at para. 82):
[T]he appellants argue that the trial judge’s broad interpretation of subsection 84(2) makes the application of this provision unpredictable, uncertain and unfair, and that it should be rejected on that account (Memorandum of the appellants, para. 106). However, an anti-avoidance measure will necessarily raise question marks in the minds of those who choose to test its limits. In the case of subsection 84(2), this uncertainty necessarily looms over taxpayers who, with the assistance of third-party facilitators, use the sale of their business to extract surpluses without tax or at a reduced rate.
Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
---|---|---|
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 84 - Subsection 84(2) | s. 84(2) extends to the indirect distribution of liquid assets of the target through its sale to an arm’s length purchaser cum “facilitator” | 917 |
Canada v. Loblaw Financial Holdings Inc., 2021 SCC 51, [2021] 3 S.C.R. 687
In connection with finding that the “business conducted” by a Barbados subsidiary of the taxpayer did not include its activities of raising capital from its shareholder (the taxpayer), Côté J stated (at para. 61, after having made the same point at greater length at para. 41):
[I]f taxpayers are to act with any degree of certainty, then full effect should be given to Parliament’s precise and unequivocal words.
Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
---|---|---|
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Business | “business conducted,” as contrasted to “business,” did not include the raising of capital | 229 |
Tax Topics - General Concepts - Foreign Law | meaning of banking business under Barbados law was not persuasive | 234 |
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 95 - Subsection 95(1) - Investment Business - Paragraph (a) | bank business was conducted with arm's length persons notwithstanding that capital raised from shareholder | 581 |
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Speaking in vain | Parliament does not speak in vain | 72 |
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 91 - Subsection 91(1) | two policies balanced in FAPI regime | 79 |
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius | specific addition of a competition requirement in another provision implied that there was no such requirement here | 152 |
McGillivray Restaurant Ltd. v. Canada, 2016 FCA 99
In finding that there should not be an expansive interpretation of what constitutes de facto control in s. 256(5.1), Ryer JA stated (at para. 50):
…An interpretation of subsection 256(5.1) that encompasses “operational” control would import a degree of subjectivity into the de facto analysis that, in my view, would lead to unpredictability, rather than predictability, as mandated by the Canada Trustco [2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601] interpretative approach.
Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
---|---|---|
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 256 - Subsection 256(5.1) | de facto control includes only significant influence over the board of directors | 402 |
Canada v. Lehigh Cement Limited, 2014 DTC 5058 [at at 6849], 2014 FCA 103, aff'g 2013 DTC 1139 [at 740], 2013 TCC 176
In rejecting the Minister’s position that s. 95(6)(b) had a broader scope than addressing situations where Canadian taxpayers manipulate share ownership in foreign corporations to achieve more favourable tax consequences under the foreign affiliate rules, Stratas JA stated (at para. 67):
Absent clear wording, I would be loath to interpret paragraph 95(6)(b) in a way that gives the Minister such a broad and ill-defined discretion – a standardless sweep – as to whether or not a tax is owing, limited only by her view of unacceptability. It would be contrary to fundamental principle. It would also promote arbitrary application, the bane of consistency, predictability and fairness.
Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
---|---|---|
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 95 - Subsection 95(6) - Paragraph 95(6)(b) | restricted to status-manipulating acquisitions or dispositions | 347 |
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Consistency | restricting of anti-avoidance rule to avoid arbitrary application | 158 |
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Headings | provision not in Tax Avoidance Part of Act | 149 |
Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601, 2005 DTC 5523
In indicating that judges should not apply taxation policies that are not grounded in the specific provisions of the Act, McLaughlin C.J. and Major J. stated (at para. 42) that such an approach "would run counter to the overall policy of Parliament that tax law be certain, predictable and fair, so that taxpayers can intelligently order their affairs. Although Parliament's general purpose in enacting the GAAR was to preserve legitimate tax minimization schemes while prohibiting abusive tax avoidance, Parliament must also be taken to seek consistency, predictability and fairness in tax law. These three latter purposes would be frustrated if the Minister and/or the courts overrode the provisions of the Income Tax Act without any basis in a textual, contextual and purposive interpretation of those provisions."
Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
---|---|---|
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 245 - Subsection 245(1) - Tax Benefit | tax benefit if taxable income reduction or on basis of comparison to alternative | 132 |
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 245 - Subsection 245(4) | policy of CCA provisions relied on cost irrespective of risk mitigation | 211 |
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(10) | "in contemplation" references "because of" or "in relation to" | 127 |
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Ordinary Meaning | primacy to ordinary meaning if unequivocal | 96 |
Ludco Enterprises Ltd. v. Canada, 2001 DTC 5505, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1082, 2001 SCC 62
Before finding that for purposes of the requirement in s. 20(1)(c)(i) that money must have been borrowed for an income-producing purpose in order to give rise to deductible interest, "income" referred to income before deductions, Iacobucci J. stated (at p. 5515):
"Nowhere in the language of the provision is a quantitative test suggested. Nor is there any support in the text of the Act for an interpretation of 'income' that involves a judicial assessment of sufficiency of income. Such an approach would be too subjective and certainty is to be preferred in the area of tax law."
Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
---|---|---|
Tax Topics - General Concepts - Purpose/Intention | objective and subjective manifestations of purpose | 104 |
Tax Topics - General Concepts - Tax Avoidance | right to structure for tax avoidance | 129 |
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 20 - Subsection 20(1) - Paragraph 20(1)(c) - Subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i) | ancillary purpose of earning (1%-yield) dividend income/allocation of reinvested proceeds 100% to income-producing source | 434 |
Brill v. The Queen, 96 DTC 6572, [1997] 1 CTC 2 (FCA)
In finding that the proceeds of disposition of a property to the taxpayer were established by the actual sale price rather than by the formula in s. 79(c) of the Act, Linden J.A. stated (at p. 6575) that "normally, the Income Tax Act taxes someone on the basis of what has actually been received, not on the basis of some theoretical formula.".
Friesen v. Canada, 95 DTC 5551, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 103
Major J. accepted the following comments in P.W. Hogg's Notes on Income Tax:
"It would introduce intolerable uncertainty into the Income Tax Act if clear language and a detailed provision of the Act were to be qualified by unexpressed exceptions derived from a court's view of the object and purpose of the provision ... . When a provision is couched in specific language that admits of no doubt or ambiguity in its application to the facts, then the provision must be applied regardless of its object and purpose."
The Queen v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., 94 DTC 6125, [1994] 1 CTC 244 (FCA)
In finding that a federal sales tax refund should not be considered to have been receivable by the taxpayer until the Minister had given some public irrevocable indication thereof, Hugessen J.A. stated (p. 6128):
"The decision creates rights and starts time running and it is as much in the public interest as in that of those immediately concerned that there be a basic minimum of certainty as to when it is made and what it is. A decision in Pectore would be an abomination in law."
Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
---|---|---|
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 12 - Subsection 12(1) - Paragraph 12(1)(b) | 54 | |
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 9 - Timing | backdating of effective time of sales tax refund | 153 |
J.L. Guay Ltée v. MNR, 71 DTC 5423, [1971] CTC 686 (FCTD), aff'd 73 DTC 5374, [1973] CTC 506 (FCA), aff'd 75 DTC 5094, [1975] CTC 97 (SCC)
Nöel A.C.J. stated (at p. 5427) that in order for an accountant's report to give the taxpayer a general picture of his affairs "it is not necessary for the profit shown to be exact but it must be reasonably close, while the Income Tax Act requires it to be exact, and it is thus necessarily arbitrary".
Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
---|---|---|
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 18 - Subsection 18(1) - Paragraph 18(1)(a) - Incurring of Expense | 91 | |
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 18 - Subsection 18(1) - Paragraph 18(1)(e) | 77 |
See Also
High-Crest Enterprises Limited v. The Queen, 2015 TCC 230, nullified on procedural grounds 2017 FCA 88
Although assisted–living facilities (or additions thereto) normally are subject to HST on their fair market value when substantially completed, ETA s. 191.1(2) effectively deems the HST to be payable on the greater of most costs and the fair market value where the builder received government funding "for the purpose of making residential units in the complex available to [seniors]."
In finding that test should be interpreted as referring to the dominant purpose of the government funder, Owen J stated (at para. 82):
Given that the definition is pivotal in identifying when to depart from the standard rule, a reasonable degree of certainty in the scope of the definition is to be preferred over an unworkably broad interpretation that accepts any degree of purpose on the part of the grantor or organization. Such an interpretation is also consonant with the general proposition that certainty, predictability and fairness are the preferred outcome in the interpretation of tax law.
See summary under General Concepts - Intention.
Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
---|---|---|
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 191.1 - Subsection 191.1(1) - Government Funding | government funding only of operating costs did not detract from its objective of increasing beds | 244 |
Tax Topics - General Concepts - Purpose/Intention | government funding only of operating costs did not detract from its purpose of increasing beds | 365 |
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Regulations - Public Service Body Rebate (GST/HST) Regulations - Section 2 - Government Funding | government funding only of operating costs did not detract from its objective of increasing beds | 173 |
Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1216 [at at 3582], 2010 TCC 317, rev'd in part 2013 DTC 5085 [at 5959], 2013 SCC 29
Before finding that the consideration in an asset sale represented by the assumption by a purchaser of a future reforestation liability should be heavily discounted from the estimate of its value by the taxpayer's auditors, C. Miller, J. stated (at para. 38) that in the jurisprudence there:
"is a common thread ... that shows the tendency of the Courts to be reluctant to impose tax, regardless of the taxing regime, in situations where the amount could be taxed is uncertain or unascertainable."
Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
---|---|---|
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Realization Principle | 86 |