Words and Phrases - "structure"
19 December 2000 Internal T.I. 2000-0009277 F - Fosse pour traitement du fumier
A farmer constructed a manure pit out of cement, meshing and earthwork and other materials that was 51 metres deep and consisted primarily of a pit platform to receive the manure, and a slurry pit and ramp. After quoting British Columbia Forest Products as to the meaning of “structure,” and in finding that the pit (other than the drainage system, which was deductible under s. 30, and the fencing , which was a Class 6 asset) was a Class 1(q) structure, the Directorate stated:
[T]he pit is something constructed and of substantial size within the ordinary meaning of those terms. It is also made up of component parts such as cement, gravel, small stone and wire mesh even if these component parts do not completely cover the pit.
… [Furthermore] the pit is permanently fixed to the ground, which constitutes a permanent foundation.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 30 | costs of drainage system for farmer’s manure pit were deductible | 21 |
18 May 2022 Internal T.I. 2018-0788761I7 F - Amortissement – Travaux sur un bien loué et F&T
The taxpayer, which subleased premises containing “Shells” consisting essentially of foundations, walls and roofs, installed wall and floor coverings and performed electrical, ventilation and plumbing work to make the premises suitable for use in its manufacturing and processing (“M&P”) operations. It took the position that the costs of the property added to the Shells for this work should be included in Class 29 rather than Class 13.
Among other requirements, in order to be a Class 29 property, the above property needed to qualify as a Class 8(b) property (e.g., tangible property attached to a building and acquired for the purpose of manufacturing or processing) and not a Class 1(q) property (a building or other structure including component parts). The Directorate agreed with the taxpayer that a property which otherwise was a Class 13 (leasehold) property could qualify as a Class 8 property (before then being potentially assimilated to Class 29), but went on to indicate that the above alterations to the Shells would be sufficient to deem the taxpayer’s leasehold interests to be a building or other structure, by virtue of Reg. 1102(5)(a)(iii). Regarding Regs. 1102(5)(a)(i) and (ii), it stated:
In light of the meaning of the terms "building" and "structure" in paragraph 1 of IT-79R3, a Shell, which is a structure with walls and a roof, may generally be considered a building or other structure for purposes of subsection 1102(5). Consequently, the Taxpayer is not considered to have erected a building, i.e., the Shell, for purposes of subsection 1102(5) where that building was erected by another taxpayer.
As for the concept of "addition", we are of the view that it generally refers to an extension to a leased building or other leased structure.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Regulations - Regulation 1102 - Subsection 1102(5) - Paragraph 1102(5)(a) - Subparagraph 1102(5)(a)(iii) | rendering of an empty shell suitable for manufacturing constituted substantially changing its nature | 288 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Regulations - Schedules - Schedule II - Class 8 - Paragraph 8(b) | property does not satisfy the “solely” test in Class 8(b) where it was necessary for the proper functioning of the building | 265 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 13 - Subsection 13(21) - Undepreciated Capital Cost - A | cost of installing property part of that property’s cost | 357 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Regulations - Regulation 1102 - Subsection 1102(4) | to be improvements or alterations to leasehold interest, property acquisitions must be assimilated to landlord’s property | 225 |
| Tax Topics - General Concepts - Ownership | leasehold improvements are assimilated to the landlord’s property unless the lease specifies otherwise | 101 |
8 January 2008 Internal T.I. 2007-0254881I7 F - Amortissement d'une aire de camping
Regarding the classification of a septic tank on a campground, the Directorate referred to Superior Pre-Kast Septic Tanks ([1978] 2 S.C.R. 612), and stated:
[S]eptic tanks on a campground are "structures" for the purposes of the Act. Based on a reading of depreciation classes 1, 3, 6 and 8, we believe that such property should be included in either Class 1 or Class 3, depending on when it was acquired.
As for swimming pools that may be found at campgrounds, we are of the view that they are depreciable property included in Class 6(e) of Schedule II to the ITR. In this regard, we refer you to the decision in Amelia Podhorn v. Minister of National Revenue, 66 DTC 223 (T.A.B.) - which was based on Oriole Park Fairways Limited v. M.N.R. 56 DTC 537 (I.T.B.A.) - to conclude that a swimming pool in a hotel complex was a water storage tank for the purposes of Class 6(e).
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Regulations - Schedules - Schedule II - Class 17 - Paragraph 17(c) | costs of developing a campground would generally be added to Class 17(c) | 98 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Regulations - Regulation 1100 - Subsection 1100(17) | campground, if a business, not subject to leasing property restriction rule | 108 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Regulations - Schedules - Schedule II - Class 6 | swimming pool is a water storage tank | 98 |
The Queen v. Hampton Golf Club Ltd., 86 DTC 6513, [1986] 2 CTC 403 (FCTD)
Golf Club greens and tees were "not so obviously artificial as to be readily distinguishable from the natural earth surroundings of the rest of the golf course", and accordingly did not qualify as "structures" (class 3). They also were not "similar surface constructions" (class 1).
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Regulations - Schedules - Schedule II - Class 1 | 45 |
British Columbia Forest Products Ltd. v. MNR, 71 DTC 5178, [1971] CTC 270 (SCC)
Supporting piers, reinforced concrete foundations and chest walls which facilitated and were necessary for the production of paper nonetheless had no separate existence as tangible capital assets and instead formed part of buildings. Accordingly, they qualified as Class 3 rather than Class 8 assets.
Tanks and recovering units were "structures" and also fell within Class 3.
Suncor Energy Inc. v. The Queen, 2001 DTC 660 (TCC), aff'd 2002 DTC 7395, 2002 FCA 350
The taxpayer used the overburden and tailings produced or extracted by it in the process of extracting bitumen from oil sands deposits to construct dykes separating disposal areas from active mining areas, and deposited the balance of the tailings in the disposal areas. Notwithstanding that the dykes were 200 or 300 feet tall and were carefully engineered, Bell T.C.J. indicated that even if the expenditures on them were considered to have given rise to a capital asset, it was his "impression" that they could not be described as a "structure".
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 18 - Subsection 18(1) - Paragraph 18(1)(b) - Capital Expenditure v. Expense - Improvements v. Repairs or Running Expense | 141 |
The Queen v. Hampton Golf Club Ltd., 86 DTC 6513, [1986] 2 CTC 403 (FCTD)
Golf Club greens and tees were "not so obviously artificial as to be readily distinguishable from the natural earth surroundings of the rest of the golf course", and accordingly did not qualify as "structures" (class 3). They also were not "similar surface constructions" (class 1).
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Regulations - Schedules - Schedule II - Class 1 - Paragraph 1(q) | golf club greens not a structure | 45 |
IT-79R3 "Capital Cost Allowance - Buildings or other Structures"
Meaning of building/structure
1. "Building" is a term of wide range covering any structure with walls and a roof affording protection and shelter. The word "structure" includes anything of substantial size that is built up from component parts and intended to remain permanently on a permanent foundation. ... British Columbia Forest Products ... concluded that the word "structure" when used in the context of "building or other structure" does not mean only a structure in the nature of a building. Bridges or hydro-electric transmission towers, for example, while clearly not buildings, are structures.