Words and Phrases - "course"
Victus Academy LP v. The Queen, 2020 TCC 134 (Informal Procedure)
The appellant (“Victus Academy”) operated a for-profit private school in Kitchener, Ontario that provided students in grades 7 through 12 with both hockey and academic programs within typical school hours. It directly oversaw the academic program, and contracted with two different providers to provide the on-ice training and off-ice conditioning that comprised the hockey programming. The school directly oversaw the academic program. The Minister disallowed ITCs of approximately $28,500 for its two 2016 reporting periods on the basis that Victus Academy was a school authority that made exempt supplies of educational services. The Victus Academy claimed that it was making taxable supplies of the hockey program (thereby entitling in to input tax credits) that were separate from its exempt supplies of the academic programing, and claimed in this regard that the two programs could be purchased separately, were invoiced separately and, as described above, were provided by separate suppliers.
Monaghan J, in dismissing the appeal, found that it was not necessary to decide whether there was a single supply, because even if the academic and hockey program were separate supplies, both were educational services described in Sched. V, Pt. III, s. 2 or s. 3, given that the students came within the definition in Sched. V, Pt. III, s. 1 of “elementary or secondary school student.”
Regarding the s. 2 exemption, she stated (at paras. 39, 40):
Section 2 does not specify the nature of the courses that are exempt. …
… [S]ection 16 of Part III refers to instructing individuals in courses “other than courses in sports, games, hobbies or other recreational pursuits that are designed to be taken primarily for recreational purposes”. This suggests the meaning of “course” in Part III includes training in sports and recreational pursuits.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Schedules - Schedule V - Part III - Section 3 | hockey program at hockey school qualified as extra-curricular activities | 459 |
22 September 2011 External T.I. 2011-0403991E5 F - Crédit d'impôt pour études
A part-time student at a university registered for courses in 3 modules comprising one module per month of 2 consecutive days of 7.5 hours each, for a total of 45 hours per course. Each course generates 3 credits and leads to a degree. Do the courses meet the "3 consecutive weeks" requirement in order to qualify as a qualifying educational program? CRA stated:
[T]he term "program" used in the definition of "qualifying educational program" … refers to the program of study rather than to each individual course. A course offered in 3 modules with a module of 2 consecutive days per month could therefore qualify for the education tax credit under subsection 118.6(2) if the program otherwise qualifies as a qualifying educational program or a specified educational program in which the student must devote at least 12 hours per month, within the meaning of section 118.6.
Fortnum v. The Queen, 2018 TCC 126 (Informal Procedure)
The taxpayer attended an accelerated one year MBA program at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. The summer session included 10 consecutive courses, each of which was of one or two weeks’ duration. The Minister denied the taxpayer’s tuition tax credit (that had been claimed under s. 118.5(1)(b)) on the basis that each course was less than three consecutive weeks’ duration
After noting that Siddell (2011 TCC 250) found that the intent of the legislation was to interpret the word "course" as referring to the entire program taken by the individual in an academic year, and that Abdalla found that, under s. 33(2) of the Interpretation Act, “course” referred to multiple consecutive courses aggregating to the required duration, Smith J stated (at paras 22, 23, and 24):
…[T]he Appellant was in full‑time attendance during the summer semester following courses that lead to a degree. Attendance at all ten courses was mandatory. … She registered for the summer semester and paid a single fee. All courses were taken consecutively or “one after the other”, over a ten week semester.
A textual, contextual and purposive analysis of the subject provision leads me to conclude that the tuition fee paid by the Appellant in respect of the summer semester meets the requirements of paragraph 118.5(1)(b) of the Act.
If I am wrong in reaching that conclusion, I find that this is a case where the application of the ordinary principles of interpretation may not resolve the issue, in which case the matter should be resolved by recourse to the residual presumption in favour of the Appellant: Placer Dome ... .
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Resolving Ambiguity | residual presumption in taxpayer's favour | 141 |
Abdalla v. The Queen, 2011 DTC 1247 [at 1412], 2011 TCC 328 (Informal Procedure)
The Minister denied the taxpayer's deduction for her husband's studies in Arizona at the University of Phoenix. Webb J. found (at para. 14) that the husband had not studied "in Canada." The facts were distinguishable from Cammidge, where the taxpayer had studied at the University of Phoenix's Edmonton campus.
Nevertheless, the taxpayer could claim a deduction under s. 118.5(1)(b). Although none of the husband's individual courses exceeded eight weeks in duration, his studies comprised multiple consecutive courses over at least 13 weeks. Webb J. found (at para. 22) that the singular "course" in s. 118.5(1)(b)(i) includes the plural.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Interpretation Act - Subsection 33(2) | 220 |