A settlement agreement between two taxpayers provided that one taxpayer was to make payments to the other on specified dates, but with their amount to be determined as a percentage of the operating income for the period (with no minimum specified) and no deadline set for repayment of the debt in full.
Regarding whether the obligation to make such payments was a liability that had been incurred and which was not contingent for purposes of ss. 18(1)(a) and (e), the Agency reviewed Burnco, Samuel F Investments, Mandel, and Barbican, and then stated:
[T]here would be arguments for saying that the obligation to pay the amount provided for in the agreement is contingent only if it can be shown that there is uncertainty as to the payment of the amount. If the facts show that it is only the time of payment that is not precisely established, but that there is no uncertainty as to the payment of the amount … it could then be a future obligation to pay and not a contingent obligation. However, it is not possible for us to make this determination at this time.