Subsection 37(1) - Scientific research and experimental development
Cases
International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd. v. MNR, 71 DTC 5332 (FCTD)
Before going on to find that the taxpayer's expenditures on scientific research (which were deducted in computing income under s. 72 of the pre-1972 Act) were capital expenditures and, therefore, not deductible for depletion allowance purposes, Cattanach J. stated (at p. 5347):
"The obvious purpose of section 72 is to permit the taxpayer to deduct from its income the amount spent on scientific research within the meaning of section 72 which might not otherwise be deductible either because it was barred by section 12(1)(b) as capital expenditures or because of the possibility the amount so expended might not be incurred directly in the income earning process within the meaning of section 12(1)(a)."
See Also
Rouleau v. The Queen, 2007 DTC 1619, 2007 TCC 338
Archambault J. found that a purported partnership of which the taxpayer was a purported member was not carrying on any business (as it was created solely to transfer R & D tax deductions to investors) so that the taxpayer was not entitled to any deductions under s. 37 in respect of alleged expenditures of the partnership.
Tigney Technology Inc. v. The Queen, 97 DTC 414, Docket: 97-518-UI (TCC)
The taxpayer, which was performing cancer research in Canada for a Swedish firm, incurred costs in respect of a temporary facility in Kentucky. The facility was required because in order to extract pharmaceuticals that the Swedish firm wanted, it was necessary that tobacco plants be harvested and processed within two hours. In finding that these expenditures were qualified expenditures, Bell TCJ. found that the portion of the research that physically took place in Kentucky was an isolated and relatively small part of the systematic investigation which was ongoing in Canada, and that the experiments conducted in Kentucky were not a separate and distinct systematic investigation but were part of the continuous scientific research on tobacco being carried on in Canada.
Halak v. MNR, 89 DTC 531 (TCC)
Because the taxpayer had ceased to make SR&ED expenditures by 1983, he lost the ability to carry forward his pre-1983 expenditures.
Power v. MNR, 89 DTC 449 (TCC)
The taxpayer was unsuccessful in seeking to deduct a portion of capital contributions which she made qua limited partner to a partnership engaged in basic and applied scientific research. "[A] deduction under section 37 must be made at the partnership level and not at the partner level unless expressly excluded as a partnership deduction."
Gaspet Ltd. (formerly Saga Petroleum (U.K.) Ltd.) v. Elliss, [1987] BTC 218 (C.A.)
The taxpayer's Irish affiliate ("Saga Ireland") was a member of an oil exploration syndicate whose operator ("B.P.") carried out exploration work under an operating agreement on behalf of the other members of the syndicate, including Saga Ireland. The taxpayer without the knowledge of the syndicate members agreed to provide all the funds required by Saga Ireland under the terms of the operating agreement in return for all petroleum "won" by Saga Ireland.
The payments made by the taxpayer to Saga Ireland did not constitute expenditures "directly undertaken by him or on his behalf" (s.91(1)(a), Capital Allowances Act 1986). "A close relationship between the claimant and the undertaking of the research is inherent in the language." It was noted that "on behalf of" denotes an agency relationship and that "undertaking the research" refers to "persons who have commissioned it, in a wide sense, i.e., without any direct contractual link as a necessary requirement".
Administrative Policy
23 September 1998 Memorandum 7-980908 -
For purposes of the SR&ED deduction and ITC, the term "Canada" does not include the area of water off the coastline of Canada outside the 12-nautical mile limit. Accordingly, SR&ED performed beyond that limit will not be eligible for the SR&ED tax credit.
Application Policy SR & ED 96-04 "Payments to Third Parties for SR & ED".
93 C.R. - Q. 2
The fact that a subsidiary does not have the right to exploit the results of SR&ED that it carries out would not, in and by itself, effect its ability to deduct the SR&ED expenditures incurred by it and claim the related investment tax credits in computing its income.
23 November 1993 Memorandum 5-932240
Where a non-resident company makes charges in the form of technical fees, royalties or licence fees to a Canadian taxpayer for the right to manufacture or produce a product developed as a result of SR&ED previously performed in Canada, this will not jeopardize the eligibility of the Canadian taxpayer for the ITC.
19 October 1993 T.I. 932981 (C.T.O. "Approved for Scientific Research")
All Canadian universities and affiliated colleges are automatically considered by RC to be "approved" entities under s. 37(1)(a)(ii)(B). The criteria for granting written approval of other entities are discussed.
18 May 1993 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 31, p. 8, ¶2517)
Discussion of criteria applied in determining whether an organization is approved.
30 March 1993 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 29, p. 2 ¶2449)
An asset can be eligible for the deduction under s. 37(1)(b), in lieu of claiming capital cost allowance, if an election is made under s. 16.1.
Tax Professionals Mini Round Table - Vancouver - Q. 20 (March 1993 Acess Letter, p. 107)
If an expenditure on scientific research is on current account and for an income-producing purpose, it is deductible without reference to s. 37.
20 August 1992 T.I. 5-921392
The phrase "entitled to exploit" in s. 37(1)(a)(ii) means that the contributor should be charged a royalty at a lower rate than that charged to non-contributors. The contributor should have the results of the SR&ED project in its possession.
7 August 1992 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 23, p. 15, ¶2131)
Where the SR&ED expenditures of a Canadian corporation are reimbursed by its U.S. parent and the Canadian corporation does not retain the right to exploit the results of the research, RC views the Canadian corporation as acting as agent for the U.S. parent, with the result that the expenditures are not eligible under s. 37(1)(a)(i).
91 C.R. - Q.32
The related business requirement generally will be satisfied when the results of the SR&ED, if successful, have a direct and beneficial application in the business.
91 CPTJ - Q.27
Where payments are made to a corporation resident in Canada to do scientific research and development work on behalf of the taxpayer and the second company subcontracts some of the work to another company in the U.S., the payments by the taxpayer will not qualify.
16 December 1991 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 11, p. 20, ¶1539)
Landscaping costs which will be deductible under s. 20(1)(aa) cannot qualify as SR&ED expenditures. However, a taxpayer whose sole business was conducting SR&ED and who incurs normal landscaping maintenance and upkeep costs will be able to deduct those costs under s. 37(1)(a)(i).
September 1991 Memorandum (Tax Window, No. 10, p. 7, ¶1477)
IT-151R3, para. 5 still largely represents RC's policy on the meaning of the phrase "related to the business".
13 June 1991 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 4, p. 24, ¶1302)
Where the receipt of government assistance depends upon expenditures actually being made, s. 37(1)(d) will only apply to government assistance which relates to expenditures made within the fiscal year.
18 October 1990 T.I. (Tax Window, Prelim. No. 1, p. 20, ¶1018)
In order for an organization to qualify under s. 37(1)(a)(ii)(A) or (B), it must be a non-profit organization that has facilities and personnel capable of carrying out SR&ED, it must have adequate funding to ensure continued SR&ED, it must carry on activities that are unquestionably SR&ED and the general public must be the beneficiary of such activities.
5 February 1990 T.I. (July 1990 Acess Letter, ¶1318)
Where a Canadian parent makes a contribution of capital to its wholly-owned subsidiary corporation to fund capital expenditures on SR&ED, the amount received by the subsidiary will not be treated as "non-government assistance" for purposes of s. 37(1)(d).
Where a taxpayer with calendar year-ends receives assistance on June 1, 1989 for expenditures described in ss.37(1)(a) and (b) that had been a rule be made in 1989, such assistance will not be required to be added to its income for the 1988 year even though it was received prior to the June 30, 1989 tax return filing date.
31 October 89 T.I. (March 1990 Acess Letter, ¶1144)
Discussion of the criteria for granting approval of an association or an educational institution.
88 C.R. - Q.70
re distinction between capital expenditures and current expenditures.
87 C.R. - Q.20
Deductibility of financial contributions to an industry research institute.
87 C.R. - Q.21
IT-364 is applicable re whether the taxpayer has commenced to carry on a business.
87 C.R. - Q. 27
Foreign travel expenditures, including remuneration, will generally be allowed if they are directly attributable to R & D carried on in Canada.
86 C.R. - Q.17
Carry-forwards must relate to a business carried on by the taxpayer in the current year.
85 C.R. - Q.47
Disposition of a capital property a short time after its acquisition will be considered as evidence that the property was not acquired wholly for purposes of undertaking scientific research.
84 C.R. - Q.41
An expenditure generally is "made" when it is "incurred", i.e., the accrual basis applies.
Articles
B. Cookson, K. Wensley, "Research and Development Roundtable", Summarized in 1997 Canadian Tax Journal, Vol. 45, No. 6, p. 1303.
Paragraph 37(1)(a)
Cases
LGL Ltd. v. The Queen, 2000 DTC 6108 (FCA)
The taxpayer carried on an SR&ED project relating to the environmental effects of offshore oil and gas development on whales, birds and fish. In finding that the direct cost of the data collection and allocable overhead for the work done outside Canada did not come within s. 37(1)(a)(i), the Court rejected a submission that once a project qualifies as SR&ED it must be looked at integrally and a determination made as to whether the project taken as an indivisible whole was carried on in Canada (as was argued to be the case here) or outside Canada. McDonald J.A. noted that in addition to the language of s. 37(1)(a) being clear on this issue, the suggested approach would inevitably lead to uncertainty for taxpayers whose SR&ED projects involved undertakings both inside and outside of Canada.
The Queen v. Tigney Technology Inc., 2000 DTC 6112, Docket: A-70-97 (FCA)
The taxpayer, which was performing cancer research in Canada for a Swedish firm, incurred costs in respect of a temporary facility in Kentucky. The facility was required because in order to extract pharmaceuticals that the Swedish firm wanted, it was necessary that tobacco plants be harvested and processed within two hours. The Court followed the LGL case in finding that the taxpayer, which was engaged in SR&ED in Canada, was not permitted to treat the costs of its experiments in Kentucky as coming within s. 37(1)(a)(i).
Subparagraph 37(1)(a)(ii)
Clause 37(1)(a)(ii)(B)
Administrative Policy
9 September 2014 T.I. 2014-0537371E5 - Approved Research Institute Status
Changes to Letters Patent in order for the "Institute" to qualify as a registered charity would not affect its status of approved research institute for purposes of s. 37(1)(a)(ii)(B). The amendments included changes to its SR&ED objects to "advance education" through SR&ED and to improve the efficiency of another registered charity through SR&ED, and to provide that on dissolution all remaining property would be distributed to other registered charities.
Subsection 37(2) - Research outside Canada
Cases
Romar v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 5076 [at 6816], 2009 FCA 48
Two Ontario partnerships of which the taxpayers were members paid for research to be carried out on their behalf by a Brazilian research corporation, in part, by issuing notes to the research corporation denominated in Brazilian currency and payable in annual installments commencing seven years hence.
The amount of the expenditures made by the partnerships should be determined, in light of generally accepted accounting principles on the basis of substantially discounting the value of the notes given that the interest rates borne by the notes were substantially lower than prevailing Brazilian interest rates (which, in turn, reflected high rates of inflation).
Beaudry v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2010 DTC 1266 [at 3853], 2008 TCC 17, aff'd Romar v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 5076 [at 6816], 2009 FCA 48
The "research" the taxpayer contracted for with a Brazilian firm did not qualify as scientific research & experimental development under s. 248(1): it was not scientifically noteworthy, considering such factors as the lack of a novel scientific question, and the lack of rigour in the hypotheses, experiments, and records.
Administrative Policy
93 C.R. - Q. 2 (File 932765)
"Testing and data collection that is directly in support of and commensurate with the needs of basic research, applied research and experimental development is SR&ED as contemplated by subsection 2900(1) of the Income Tax Regulations. Consequently, the wage and travel costs of Canadian employees sojourning outside Canada during such testing and data collection taking place outside Canada only qualifies under subsection 37(2)."
Subsection 37(3) - Minister may obtain advice
Cases
Stromotich v. The Queen, 88 DTC 6172, [1988] 1 CTC 252 (FCTD)
"There is not mandatory duty on the Minister to obtain advice. There is no legal right in the plaintiff to require him to do so."
Subsection 37(4) - Where no deduction allowed under section
See Also
Halak v. MNR, 89 DTC 531 (TCC)
Because a patent accords the investor the exclusive right to exploit his invention for profit, and is only granted after the invention is created, expenses incurred by the taxpayer with respect to a patent application did not qualify.
Administrative Policy
84 C.R. - Q.11
S.37(4) will not normally apply to deny a deduction for expenditures made to acquire computer software required to support the taxpayer's research efforts.
Subsection 37(6) - Expenditures of a capital nature
Administrative Policy
1996 Ontario Tax Conference Round Table, "Purchase and Sale of Computer Software, Q. 5", 1997 Canadian Tax Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, at p. 221
Where the development costs of computer software were claimed as a deduction under s. 37(1)(b), proceeds of disposition of the software will be on income account by virtue of s. 37(6).
Subsection 37(7) - Definitions
Approved
Administrative Policy
29 November 2013 T.I. 2013-0505451E5 - "Approved" Status
Approval of a not-for profit corporation (with any remaining property on dissolution being distributed to one or more Canadian organizations referred to in s. 37(1)(a)(ii)(A), (B), (C) or (E) carrying on similar activities) which will carry on non-domain SR&ED integrated into the XX facilities, will receive private as well as public grants, and will employ basic researchers after interviewing them and subjecting their proposals for an SR&ED eligibility review through a committee.
5 May 1995 T.I. 5-942198
Discussion of distinction between an approved research institute (s.37)(1)(a)(ii)(B)) and a non-profit corporation described in s. 149(j).
19 January 1994 T.I. 931559 (C.T.O. "Approved Status")
Discussion of criteria for an organization to be an "approved association".
Paragraph 37(7)(f)
Cases
Mailloux v. The Queen, Docket: A-390-98 (FCA)
Because a hair dryer was a large building, expenditures for its acquisition did not qualify notwithstanding that it was an experimental prototype. In response to a submission that it was a structure not a building, Létourneau noted that it met the (French) dictionary definition of a building as "any construction intended to serve as shelter and protection" or "construction, generally of large dimensions, ... used to accommodate humans, animals or things".
Subsection 37(8) - Interpretation
See Also
CalAmp Wireless Networks Inc v. The Queen, 2013 DTC 1172 [at 939], 2013 DTC 201
A taxation year of "Dataradio" (a predecessor, by amalgamation, of the taxpayer) commenced on 1 May 2006 and ended on 9 May 2006 by virtue of the purchase of all its shares by the newly-incorporated Canadian subsidiary of a U.S.-resident corporation. Dataradio had elected to use the proxy method under s. 37(8)(a)(ii)(B). Bonuses of $1,999,036 paid by the taxpayer to its employees were treated as expenditures incurred by Dataradio on SR&ED in such short taxation year.
In finding that these expenditures did not qualify under s. 37(8)(a)(ii)(B)(IV) as having been incurred in that year for salary or wages of employees "directly engaged" in SR&ED, Bédard J found that the expenditures were not connected with SR&ED activities carried on in that year because they instead represented a sharing in the financial success represented by the sale of Dataradio at a premium price and also were intended create conditions that would favour employee retention at the successor corporation following that taxation year.
Waxman v. The Queen, 97 DTC 705 (TCC)
A partnership that carried out R&D projects respecting the diet and sheltering of steers was entitled to treat substantially all its expenditures as qualified expenditures, including issue expenses and interest expenses. In finding that the purchase price of the steers qualified notwithstanding that they ultimately were sold for meat, Archambault TCJ. accepted evidence that the large size of the herd was justified by the greater reliability of results that would be generated by broader sampling in a commercial farm setting, and that the dictates of the research program required substantially greater expenditures of manpower and feed than would have been the case in a normal commercial operation.
Dew Engineering & Development Ltd. v. The Queen, 96 DTC 1765 (TCC)
A portable laboratory composed of five modules connected to one another by bolts (and that were almost identical to the components of the walkways used at the Ottawa International Airport) was found (at p. 1770) not to be a building given that it was "not installed and intended to remain in a particular location".
Administrative Policy
29 November 1993 Memorandum 7-932445 -
Discussion of the meaning of "bonus" and "remuneration based on profits" in three contexts.
Articles
Katiya, "Proposed Changes to the SR&ED Program under the Income Tax Act", 1994 Canadian Tax Journal, No. 42, No. 2, p. 309.
Paragraph 37(8)(a)
Cases
Alcatel Canada Inc. v. The Queen, 2005 DTC 387, 2005 TCC 149
S.7 employment benefits under an employee stock option program realized by employees engaged in qualifying scientific research activities constituted qualified expenditures of the taxpayer and expenditures made in respect of expenses incurred for salary or wages for purposes of s. 37(8)(a)(ii)(B)(iv), given that the word "expenditure" did not require that there be a disbursement of cash as opposed to a disbursement of other assets, and that "a very real expenditure is accomplished when shares having an established market value are sold for less than [their] value in the context of a scheme for the compensation of the employees who buy them". Furthermore, given that the primary purpose of the stock option program was to compensate employees for their services and to encourage future effort, and the taxpayer did not engage in the stock option program to increase or otherwise alter its capital structure, these expenditures were of a current nature.
Imapro Corp. v. The Queen, 92 DTC 6487 (FCTD)
47.3% of a multi-purpose building which was constructed for a computer graphics corporation was used exclusively by it for scientific research. The corporation was unsuccessful in deducting 47.3% of the construction costs that related to common and administrative areas that were not used solely for scientific research purposes and in the deduction of 47.3% of expenses of a current nature that related to the common areas. McGillis J. stated (p. 6494):
"Even assuming that some leeway is permitted from the 90% rule adopted by the Department ... a 47.3% portion of expenditures incurred in relation to SR&ED would not fall within the meaning of the words 'all or substantially all'."
See Also
Blue Wave Seafoods Inc. v. The Queen, 2004 DTC 3066, 2004 TCC 553, aff'd 2006 DTC 6155, 2006 FCA 81
The taxpayer, which in its 1995 and 1996 taxation years was acknowledged by the Minister to be engaged in SR&ED in connection with its efforts in developing new products (surimi and tempura) out of silver hake, was found not to be consuming silver hake in SR&ED activities to the extent that the silver hake represented excess fish purchased by it, i.e., fish that was resold at a loss - notwithstanding that the taxpayer effectively was required to purchase all such silver hake in order to encourage the fishing of the silver hake in the first place.
Data Kinetics Ltd. v. The Queen, 98 DTC 1877, Docket: 95-456-IT-G (TCC)
The taxpayer, which was engaged in researching and developing advanced data management and memory management software systems for large mainframe computers, and which had adopted the proxy method for calculating SR&ED expenditures, was able to include in s. 37(8)(a)(ii)(B)(I) the cost of a dedicated telephone line that was used to pass instructions and data from the taxpayer's employees in Ottawa (none of whom left Canada) to the staff of an independent company in Birmingham, Alabama whose mainframe computer the taxpayer was leasing for testing purposes. In finding that the testing was performed in respect of SR&ED in Canada, Lamarre TCJ. stated (at p. 1884) that "the leasing expenditures made in the U.S. merely facilitate a mechanical testing process that is part and in support of the whole SR&ED project carried on in Canada".
Consoltex Inc. v. The Queen, 97 DTC 724 (TCC)
The cost of yarn that the taxpayer expended in the course of an R&D project qualified under both s. 37(7)(c)(ii)(A) and Regulation 2900(2)(c), notwithstanding that the yarn subsequently was sold. Bowman TCJ. stated (at p. 736) that "the word 'expenditures' is a reasonably comprehensible English word ... . It is something one spends, an outlay. No meaning of which I am aware, either in ordinary parlance or in decided cases, would justify adding after it 'net of sales proceeds'".
He went on to note in light of former s. 4(4) that as the expenditures qualified under s. 37, they could not also be deducted as the cost of sales under s. 9.
Administrative Policy
Application Policy SR & ED 96-06 "Directly Undertaking, Supervising or Supporting v. 'Directly Engaged' SR & ED Salary and Wages".
30 May 1990 T.I. (October 1990 Acess Letter, ¶1459)
General discussion.
12 December 1989 Memorandum (May 1990 Acess Letter, ¶1211)
It is not sufficient that an expenditure was intended to be used substantially for research; it must have actually been used in that manner.
Subparagraph 37(8)(a)(ii)
Clause 37(8)(a)(ii)(A)
See Also
Inflection Analytics Ltd. v. The Queen, 2015 TCC 129
The taxpayer, a developer of market analysis software, paid fees to purchase or license historical securities data in order to simulate market conditions in testing. Boyle J agreed with the Minister that the this agreement could not be considered a licence of "equipment" for the purpose of the taxpayer's claims for SR&ED credits. The taxpayer merely had the right to access information via a website rather than "any rights in equipment of the vendor that can be used by the Appellant as it wishes, as was the case [with a US mainframe and a dedicated line to access it] in Datakinetics." (Para. 10.)
Clause 37(8)(a)(ii)(B)
See Also
Feedlot Health Management Services Ltd. v. The Queen, 2015 TCC 32
The taxpayer, a veterinary consulting firm, undertook four research projects to test new diets, supplements, and vaccines on cattle, and paid feedlot operators to perform these protocols. The 7000 cattle used in testing by the operators were, apart from the test protocols, raised for commercial production on behalf of their owners. The Minister disallowed scientific research and experimental development credits respecting over $1.6 million paid by the taxpayer to one of the farms ("Jim Farms"), for costs incurred by Jim Farms for feeding the cattle, on the basis that Jim Farms was not engaged in SRED and none of the "proxy" provisions in s. 37(8)(a)(ii)(B) applied.
Woods J allowed the taxpayer's appeal, finding that the amounts paid to Jim Farms were "in respect of" the prosecution of research undertaken on the taxpayer's behalf, bringing them within s. 37(8)(a)(ii)(B)(II). Jim Farms' work was not SRED because it was performed "with respect to" the commercial use of a new process (i.e. the feeding protocols), and therefore was caught by the exclusion in para. (i) of s. 248(1) - "scientific research and experimental development," an exception which also applies to work by third parties (para. 80). However, although the work was not for SRED, the words "in respect of" also import the meaning "in relation to" (para. 62, citing Savage), and the work related to the taxpayer's own SRED.
Subclause (I) did not apply. The contracts between the taxpayer and Jim Farms gave the taxpayer considerable control over the cattle, including transporting and marketing decisions (so as to ensure that testing was not disrupted), but they were not "leases" of the cattle, as they did not confer an exclusive right of possession (paras. 43-44).
Woods J also rejected the taxpayer's argument that subclause (II) could apply even where there is no contract for third-party SRED (para. 68).
Paragraph 37(8)(c)
See Also
PSC Elstow Research Farm Inc. v. The Queen, 2009 DTC 168, 2008 TCC 694
The taxpayer, which engaged in research as to techniques for maximizing the yield from pig farming operations and, consequently, derived significant revenues from the sale of pigs, deducted such revenues from its expenses in its financial statements.
The only business of the taxpayer was its research business (so that it did not have another business of a commercial pig farm). Furthermore, even if the proceeds of sale of pigs should be taken into account (rather than their deduction from expenses being accepted), such proceeds of sale would still be derived from the taxpayer's research activities, so that it satisfied the "substantially all of its revenue" test in s. 37(8)(c).
Administrative Policy
7 May 1991 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 3, p. 30, ¶1244)
Where a corporate partnership is conducting scientific research and experimental development, s. 37(7)(e) will be applied at the partnership level rather than at the level of the corporate partners.
28 December 1989 Memorandum (May 1990 Acess Letter, ¶1213)
Royalties earned by a taxpayer whose business consists of carrying out SR&ED on its own behalf and licensing the results, meets the revenue test in s. 37(7)(e).
18 December 1989 Memorandum (May 1990 Acess Letter, ¶1212)
Each expenditure made by a single-purpose corporation must still meet the requirements of being incurred for scientific research and experimental development as set out in ss.37(1)(a) or 37(1)(b)(i).
Paragraph 37(8)(d)
Administrative Policy
26 September 1991 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 10, p. 8, ¶1481)
S.37(7)(f)(iii)(B) does not have the effect of excluding payments made to a corporation described in s. 149(1)(j) which deals at arm's length with the taxpayer.
90 C.P.T.J. - Q.16
Additions and alterations to an existing building come within the exclusion in s. 37(7)(f)(i) because "building" includes any additional alteration to an existing building.
1990 Answers of the Scarborough District Office (May 1990 Acess Letter, ¶1200, Q. 7)
Capital expenditures made in respect of refurbishing or renovating a pre-existing building are considered non-qualifying expenditures in respect of "the acquisition of a building" for purposes of s. 37(7)(f)(i).
Subsection 37(10) - Time for election
Cases
Advance Agricultural Testing Inc. v. The Queen, 2009 DTC 687, 2009 TCC 190
The taxpayer was precluded from revoking his election to use the proxy method for his 1995 to 1998 taxation years. Subsection 37(1) was not referred to in Regulation 600.
Subsection 37(11) - Filing requirement
See Also
1373744 Ontario Inc., O/A One Source Metal v. The Queen, 2009 DTC 1884, 2009 TCC 511
Although the taxpayer filed its form T-661 on a timely basis for its 2005 taxation year (i.e. by March 31, 2007), on balance of probabilities it appeared that a technical report was not filed by it or its representative until shortly after April 10, 2007, with the result that the taxpayer's claim was denied.