After having incurred substantial GST in acquiring a transit system for exempt use, the appellant commenced to lease the system to another municipal transit entity for rent of $1 per year, but with the lessee being obligated to pay municipal taxes imposed on the leased premises (which amounted to around $2 million per year). In finding that this lease represented a supply of the system for consideration other than nominal consideration (so that there was a change of use under ss. 209(2) and 199(3) entitling the appellant to recover the basic tax content of this asset), C Miller J noted that if he accepted the appellant's position that "nominal is trifling or such an amount that it is immaterial whether or not it is paid, the answer is self-evident – several million dollars are not nominal [and] there is no evidence that [the lessee] ever intended not to pay the property taxes" (para. 55), and went on to state (at para. 56) that even "interpreting ‘nominal' on a relative basis, that payment of the property taxes…is not nominal."
Topics and taglines
Tagline
lease consideration not nominal because of property tax obligation
Words and phrases
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
332123
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a id=\"BCTransit\"></a>British Columbia Transit v. The Queen</em></strong>, [2006] GSTC 103, 2006 TCC 437 <strong>[lease consideration not nominal because of property tax obligation]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a id=\"BCTransit\"></a>British Columbia Transit v. The Queen</em></strong>, [2006] GSTC 103, 2006 TCC 437 <strong>[lease consideration not nominal because of property tax obligation]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}