Deference to Parliament/ No judicial legislation

Cases

Stewart v. Canada, 2002 DTC 6969, 2002 SCC 46, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 645

avoid judicial rule-making

Before finding that the taxpayer was not required to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of profit ("REOP") with respect to four rental condominium units held by him, the Court stated (at para. 47) that:

"The REOP test has been applied independently of provisions of the Act to second-guess bona fide commercial decisions of the taxpayer and therefore runs afoul of the principle that courts should avoid judicial rule-making in tax law ... ."

Canderel Ltd. v. Canada, 98 DTC 6100, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 147, [1998] 2 C.T.C. 35

presumption against judicial legislation

Iacobucci J found that it was inappropriate to require the amortization over time of tenant inducement payments made by the taxpayer given that, to attempt to match such expenditures with the diverse benefits created, some immediate, and some deferred, would “constitute judicial legislation of a very intrusive variety” (para. 62) and that “an artificial and arbitrary solution to impose the matching principle, as a matter of law, upon circumstances where its application quite evidently creates serious difficulty” (para. 63).

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - General Concepts - Onus 105
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 18 - Subsection 18(9) 57
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 9 - Accounting Principles not following matching principle accorded with well-accepted business practices 153
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 9 - Timing lease inducement payments currently deductible 124
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius inference made from narrow scope of s. 18(9) 34