Cases
Gaynor v. The Queen, 91 DTC 5288 (FCA)
Pratte J.A. found in light of the principle that Canadian currency "is the only monetary standard of value known to Canadian law", that it was inappropriate to measure a capital gain from the disposition of U.S. securities by first computing the profit in U.S. dollars and multiplying by the exchange rate prevailing at the time of disposition.
Midwest Oil Production Ltd. v. The Queen, 82 DTC 6092, [1982] CTC 107 (FCTD), aff'd 83 DTC 5304, [1983] CTC 338 (FCA)
A crude oil royalty was routinely expressed in money and was, thus, clearly an "amount".
MNR v. Burns, 58 DTC 1028 (Ex Ct), briefly aff'd 59 DTC 1328 (SCC)
The taxpayer, when it sold cottages it had constructed, usually accepted second mortgages from the purchasers which it would subsequently sell at a substantial discount from their face amount. In finding that s. 85B(1)(b) of the pre-1972 Act required the principal of the second mortgages to be included in the computation of the taxpayer's income at the time of the sale, Cameron J. noted that because the second mortgages were expressed in terms of money, it was that amount which was to be included in income in light of the definition of "amount" in s. 139 of the pre-1972 Act.
See Also
Gibson v. The Queen, 95 DTC 749 (TCC)
The taxpayer transferred his equity in a house to his former spouse in satisfaction of arrears of alimony or maintenance owing to her of $19,946. In finding that this constituted a payment of such arrears, O'Connor TCJ. stated (at p. 752) that "payment in kind, provided there has been an agreement or a binding determination of the value in money of the object given, will suffice ... . To do otherwise would seem to run counter to the definition of 'amount' in subsection 248(1)".
Tyoxide Canada Inc. v. The Queen, 93 DTC 1499 (TCC)
The entitlement of a taxpayer to a Quebec tax credit came within the broad definition of "amount".
The Queen v. Consumers' Co-Operative Refineries Ltd., 87 DTC 5409, [1987] 2 CTC 204 (FCA)
The references in s. 135(2) to allocations being made at an appropriate "rate" include a nil allocation.
Administrative Policy
2003 APFF Roundtable Q. 2, 2003-0029995
With reference to the situation where a corporation governed by the CBCA declares and pays a stock dividend on its common shares by issuing 100 preferred shares with a redemption price of $100,000 and the amount added by the directors to the stated capital of the preferred shares is $1, CCRA noted that:
"Many authors are of the view that under the CBCA, it is possible to pay stocks dividends as described above and add a nominal amount to the stated capital of shares ... . In general, the CCRA does not challenge the legal validity of the stated capital of shares of a corporation incorporated under the CBCA, where a nominal amount has been added to the stated capital of the shares issued by the corporation, as in the situation above. Consequently ... the amount of the dividend ... would generally be considered to be $1 ... ."
90 C.R. - Q49
Where in accordance with the applicable corporate law the declared amount of a stock dividend is a nominal amount of money, that will constitute the amount of the dividend notwithstanding that the shares comprising the stock dividend are redeemable for a higher amount.
IT-67R3 "Taxable Dividends from Corporations Resident in Canada"
Includes discussion of valuation of dividends in kind.