Cases
Hedges v. Canada, 2016 FCA 19
In connection with finding (at para. 20) that the zero-rating in Sched. VI-I-2(d) "was intended to apply to certain drugs that could be legally sold to a consumer,” as contrasted to illegal sales, Rennie JA stated (at para. 21):
Headings may be considered as part of the search for parliamentary intention, particularly in the case where the language is obscure, as it is in this case. The chapeau of section 2 “Prescription Drugs and Biologicals” does not contemplate any and all drugs, rather it contemplates drugs that may be obtained through a recognized channel – a prescription.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Schedules - Schedule VI - Part I - Section 2 | authorizations to possess marihuana were not sale exemptions | 232 |
| Tax Topics - General Concepts - Illegality | illogical to infer a tax benefit from illegal sales | 153 |
Canada v. Lehigh Cement Limited, 2014 DTC 5058 [at 6849], 2014 FCA 103, aff'g 2013 DTC 1139 [at 740], 2013 TCC 176
Stratas JA was assisted in his conclusions that s. 95(6)(b) was not intended to deal with generalized tax avoidance by its location in the Act, stating (at para. 54):
Another contextual factor is the architecture of the Act. Paragraph 95(6)(b) appears in subdivision i ("Shareholders of Corporations Not Resident in Canada") of Division B ("Computation of Income") of Part I of the Act. When paragraph 95(6)(b) is triggered, it affects whether a particular share acquisition or disposition should be considered when computing income. It is not in a more general part of the Act such as Part XVI ("Tax Avoidance"). In the absence of specific wording suggesting otherwise, this supports the conclusion that paragraph 95(6)(b) addresses concerns about acquisitions or dispositions of "shares of corporations not resident in Canada," not other transactions or more general tax avoidance concerns.
| 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 |
Canada (National Revenue) v. Greater Montréal Real Estate Board, 2008 DTC 6420, 2007 FCA 346
Before referring to the fact that s. 231.2(1) appeared under Part XV of the Act respecting "Administration and Enforcement" under the heading "General", Trudel J.A. stated (at para. 39) that "Headings may help to situate a provision within the general structure of the statute and determine the intention of Parliament".
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 231.2 - Subsection 231.2(3) | 134 | |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Legislative History | 38 |
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. A.G. (Can.), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 679
"[T]itles, unlike marginal notes, are an integral part of the Act; see Elmer Driedger, The Composition of Legislation (1957), at p. 103."
Henderson Estate v. M.N.R, 73 DTC 5471, [1973] CTC 636 (FCTD), aff'd 75 D.TC 5332, [1975] C.TC 485 (FCA)
"The heading indicates the general object of the provisions following and the heading may be referred to in order to determine the sense of a section under that heading."
See Also
Smith v. The Queen, 2018 TCC 61 (Informal Procedure)
Graham J found that a status Indian, who earned exempt income from employment and non-exempt investment income, could only deduct a registered pension plan contribution in computing his employment income (and not from his income generally), so that the deduction effectively was denied. He noted (at para. 18) that the specific deduction provision (s. 147.2(4)) “does not identify a specific source of income” but then stated (also at para. 18):
However, subsection 147.2(4) is referenced in paragraph 8(1)(m) which is located under Part I, Division B, “Computation of Income”, Subdivision a, “Income or Loss from an Office or Employment”. This heading indicates that these provisions are restricted to income from an office or employment. Although this is in no way definitive of the statutory interpretation of a provision, it may provide some guidance according to the placement of the provision within the overall framework. The Court in Kaiser v Minister of National Revenue, [1991] TCJ No. 429, 91 DTC 1057, at paragraph 8, relied on the following quote from “The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada” by Pierre A. Côté respecting the potential value of headings:
…headings are part of a statute and thus relevant to its construction. Headings may help to situate a provision within the general structure of the statute: they indicate its framework, its anatomy. Headings may also be considered as preambles to the provisions they introduce….
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 147.2 - Subsection 147.2(4) | RPP contribution deductible only from employment income rather than income generally | 306 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 3 | income is to be computed on a “sub-source” basis | 117 |
Kaiser v. MNR, 91 DTC 1057, [1991] 2 CTC 2168 (TCC)
Christie A.C.J. found that s. 20(12) did not apply to permit deductions from employment income given that it was found in subdivision b of Division B of Part I of the Act, after quoting a statement of Driedger that headings "have a higher status than marginal notes".
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 20 - Subsection 20(12) | exclusion for employment income | 43 |