Cases
MNR v. Stanchfield, 2009 DTC 5710, 2009 FC 99
The taxpayer was unsuccessful in a submission that an s. 231.7 demand did not apply to him because he was not a "person" in his capacity of a natural person acting for his own private benefit.
R. v. Sargent, 2005 DTC 5288, 2004 ONCJ 356
A submission by the taxpayer that the Act only applies to corporations and not to natural persons, was rejected.
International Fruit Distributors Ltd. v. MNR, 53 DTC 1222 (Ex Ct), aff'd without reasons 55 DTC 1186 (SCC)
The taxpayer, which along with another Canadian corporation was controlled by a U.S. parent, was unsuccessful in a submission that it was related to the other Canadian corporation because the term "person" in s. 36(4)(b)(i) as it applied in 1949 would not extend to a corporation or, in any event, a foreign corporation. Thorson P. noted (at p. 1223) that the definition of "person" in the Act "clearly includes a corporation. Indeed, it includes 'any' corporation and there is no reason for holding that it does not extend to a foreign corporation ... ."
See Also
Quali-T-Tube ULC Inc. v. The Queen, 2005 TCC 373
The Court rejected a submission of the taxpayer (at para. 33) that "the word 'person' in this context [of the definition of "cost of labour" in Regulation 5202] cannot be interpreted so as to include a corporation because a corporation cannot perform management or administrative functions".
Seven Mile Dam Contractors v. The Queen in Right of British Columbia (1980), 116 DLR (3d) 398, 1980 CanLII 451 (BCCA)
A definition in the Interpretation Act (B.C.) of a person as including a partnership did not displace the general law of partnership that each partner has a property interest in the assets of the partnership.
Office Overload Co. Ltd. v. MNR, 65 DTC 690 (TAB)
The vendor "person" referred to in the statutory predecessor of s. 22 of the Act was interpreted as not including a non-resident who was not subject to any obligation to file a Canadian income tax return given (at p. 697) that:
"The section taken as a whole, which, in my opinion, is the way in which it must be interpreted, is intended to apply to persons who fall to be taxed or otherwise dealt with under the provisions of the Canadian Income Tax Act and who report to the Canadian Government the income arising from the operation of the business or businesses whose sale is the central concern of the said section ... ."
Administrative Policy
19 December 2012 Memorandum 2012-0472761I7 - Definition of person in respect to a province
An inquiry from the Newfoundland/Labrador TSO was generated when a provincial official questioned whether the federal government could, in the absence of an information exchange agreement, require information and/or documents from the provincial governement pursuant to s. 231.2. After citing MNR v Braithwaite, 70 DTC 6001 (Ex Ct), the Directorate stated:
a person would include Her Majesty in right of a province and a reference to Her Majesty in right of a province would be a reference to the provincial government including a ministry of that government. Accordingly, a province would be subject to section 231.2....
1 February 1999 T.I. 982371
"It is generally the Department's view that a foreign corporation is a 'person' for purposes of the Act unless the context clearly indicates otherwise." Accordingly, for purposes of applying the personal services business rules, a Canadian corporation was found to be associated with a U.S. corporation that it controlled.
IT-385R2 "Disposition of an Income Interest in a Trust"
IT-385R2 "Disposition of an Income Interest in a Trust"
26 August 1993, T.I. (Tax Window, No. 33, p. 2, ¶2637)
"Person" as used in Part II of the Regulations includes a non-resident person.
3 October 1991 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 10, p. 23, ¶24)
RC interprets the Oceanspan case as dealing only with the meaning of "taxpayer", not the meaning of "person".