Select a subtopic
- Capital Asset v. Inventory
- Contract Modification
- Contract or Option Cancellation
- Contract Purchases
- Copyright and Licences
- Damages
- Equipment
- Financing Expenditures
- Goodwill, Trademarks and Customer Lists
- Improvements v. Repairs or Running Expense
- Investment Management
- Know-How and Training
- Lessening of Competition
- Marketing Expenditures
- Patents or other intangible property
- Restrictive Covenants
- Shareholder Assistance
- Start-Up and Close-Down Expenditures
Cases
Darling v. Attorney General of Canada, 2003 DTC 5489, 2003 FCA 282 (FCA)
Amounts that were collected by investors from the taxpayer by way of garnishment order as a result of a court finding that the taxpayer and his brother had fraudulently misled the investors and were required to repay a portion of the funds invested by the investors for the acquisition of a farm property, represented payments on account of capital and, therefore, were non-deductible.
Françon Ltée v. MNR, 73 DTC 5514, [1973] CTC 708 (FCA)
In order to obtain an immediate release of construction holdbacks from the customers of its construction business, the taxpayer deposited securities with them, which were then released after the construction work which it had performed was certified.
Jackett C.J. held (p. 5516) that because this arrangement "was one of the transactions of its construction business and ... was carried out in the process of earning the profit of the business," the taxpayer was entitled to deduct the value of the securities paid by it to the customer.
See Also
Berhad v. Director General of Inland Revenue, [1985] BTC 578 (PC)
The taxpayer felled and extracted lumber as a necessary step in the process of developing 7,000 acres of jungle into an oil palm plantation. Sums which it realized from the sale of timber were a deduction from the cost of its plantation assets rather than income receipts.