Table of Contents


Tennant v. M.N.R., 96 DTC 6121, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 305

Iacobucci J. rejected the Crown's position that where an investment was sold and the proceeds fully utilized to acquire an investment with a lower cost, that there was a corresponding loss of an interest deduction to the taxpayer, as resulting in "an irrational asymmetry", because there would be no corresponding increase in an interest deduction if the replacement property instead had a higher cost.

The Queen v. Kimmel, 76 DTC 6259, [1976] CTC 443 (FCTD)

The "blunder" of Revenue Canada in allowing the vendor of depreciable real estate to claim CCA on the property in the year in which he disposed of it to the taxpayer, did not deprive the taxpayer of his right to claim CCA.

Gingras v. MNR, 63 DTC 1142 (Ex Ct)

After having decided earlier in the same day in Frontenac Shoe Ltée v. MNR, 63 DTC 1129 that payments made by a corporation to its shareholder were partly deductible to the corporation, Noel J. went on to note in this case that this finding did not establish that the payments were income receipts to the taxpayer (p. 1143):

"It has often been held that the fact that a payor considered payments as capital expenditures or income expenses does not necessarily mean that the nature of these payments could not change when considered from the point of view of the recipient."