The Queen v. Yelle, 2010 DTC 5128 [at at 7083], 2010 ABPC 94 -- summary under A

The taxpayers, accused of criminal evasion under s. 239(1)(a), moved for a directed verdict. The taxpayers were members of a partnership which had claimed capital cost allowance on software which the partnership had acquired for a purchase price of Cdn. $4 million from a corporation which, in turn, had acquired the software for a purchase price of U.S. $42,000 pursuant to a purchase agreement that was dated one day earlier than the agreement for the purchase of the software by the partnership. In considering a motion for a directed verdict, it was to be assumed that the Crown's factual allegations would be accepted, including the allegation that the buyer partnership and the vendor corporation were not dealing at arm's length. Before dismissing the taxpayer's motion, Fradsham J. remarked at para. 23 that, if the parties had been operating at arm's length, then the purchase price would have to be accepted for tax purposes.