Canada v. Anchor Pointe Energy Ltd., 2003 DTC 5512, 2003 FCA 294 -- summary under Subsection 152(9)

By services, 28 November, 2015

After the Minister had assessed predecessors of the taxpayer on the basis that amounts paid by them to purchase seismic data exceeded the fair market value of the data, so that the full purchase price did not qualify as CEE, the taxpayer filed Notices of Objection. The Minister then issued Notifications of Confirmation which, based on the subsequently-decided decision in Global Communications, found that none of the purchase qualified for treatment as CEE (although the Minister did not purport to increase the tax payable by the taxpayer).

In finding that s. 152(9) did not preclude the Minister from issuing a Notice of Confirmation on this basis, Rothstein J.A. noted (at para. 40) that the confirmation did not have the effect of introducing a new transaction in that the Minister instead was only relying on an additional argument in support of denial of the CEE deductions that originally had been denied by the Minister.

Topics and taglines
Tagline
Minister could rely on a new argument (suggesting none of CEE deductible) in confirming a reasssessment partially disallowing the CEE
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
334641
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>The Queen v. Anchor Pointe Energy Ltd.</em></strong>, 2003 DTC 5512, 2003 FCA 294",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}