Kaushik v. The Queen, 2006 DTC 2277, 2005 TCC 207 (Informal Procedure) -- summary under Patents or other intangible property

By services, 28 November, 2015

Before going on to find that the taxpayer was not using a patent in a business so that no capital costs allowance or eligible capital expenditures could be recognized, Bowman C.J. stated (p.2279) "a patent is, in almost any circumstances that I can think of, a capital asset".

Topics and taglines
Topic
Income Tax Act - s. 18(1)(b) - Capital Expenditure v. Expense - Patents or other intangible property
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
335639
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Kaushik v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2006 DTC 2277, 2005 TCC 207 (Informal Procedure)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}