Cases
Canada v. Cheema, 2018 FCA 45
In finding that the purchase of a new home did not qualify for the new housing rebate because one of the named purchasers in the purchase agreement, who was not intended to acquire a beneficial interest in the property, was not acquiring the house for personal use, Stratas JA stated (at paras. 110-111):
One of the purposes of the Excise Tax Act is to ensure administrative efficiency. Absent statutory wording to the contrary and all else being equal, an interpretation that favours administrative efficiency is more likely to have been intended by Parliament over one that does not.
The interpretation I urge makes it easier than that of my colleague to verify if a person has qualified for the rebate. … [O]n my interpretation a taxpayer in response to a query need only produce the agreement of purchase and sale to show the legal acquirer of the complex and easily obtained personal documents, such as utility bills, other standard invoices, and drivers’ licences to show who is personally residing in the complex. On my colleague’s view … [s]uddenly a straightforward verification exercise morphs into a sprawling examination for discovery.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 254 - Subsection 254(2) - Paragraph 254(2)(b) | third party who did not intend to occupy was liable at the purchase agreement time | 355 |
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 133 | s. 133 deemed an acquisition of future home on co-purchaser's signing purchase agreement, notwithstanding that no beneficial interest received on closing | 268 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Ordinary Meaning | Court should not depart from usual interpretation principles in seeking a sensible result | 128 |
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Regulations - New Harmonized Value-Added Tax System Regulations, No. 2 - Section 40 | co-purchaser with no intended beneficial interest was required to satisfy ETA s. 254(2) rules | 171 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 104 - Subsection 104(1) | "legal acquirer" rather than intended beneficial owner was the purchaser | 219 |
65302 British Columbia Ltd. v. Canada, 99 DTC 5799, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 804
After noting that the minority proposed that the distinction between deductible and non-deductible fines be determined on a case-by-case basis, Iacobucci J. stated (at para. 68) that in his view "such an approach would be quite onerous for the taxpayer who would be forced to undertake the difficult task of determining the object or purpose of the statute under which the payment was demanded whenever he or she filled out a tax return".
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 18 - Subsection 18(1) - Paragraph 18(1)(a) - Income-Producing Purpose | fines for conduct engaged in for an income-producing purpose | 270 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 18 - Subsection 18(1) - Paragraph 18(1)(a) - Public Policy | 71 | |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 18 - Subsection 18(1) - Paragraph 18(1)(b) - Capital Expenditure v. Expense - Improvements v. Repairs or Running Expense | avoidance of threat to business not relevant to income treatment | 124 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Drafting Style | avoid policy conjectures in detailed and complex statute | 126 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Resolving Ambiguity | 125 |