Zeuter Development Corporation v. The Queen, 2007 DTC 41, 2006 TCC 597 (Informal Procedure) -- summary under Scientific Research & Experimental Development

By services, 28 November, 2015

Little J found that a project of developing an interactive software tool to assist high school students with physics and mathematics did not qualify as SR&ED because there was no technological or scientific uncertainty involved. He stated (at para. 24):

Novelty or innovation in a product is not sufficient to illustrate technological advancement; rather, it is how these features arise that is important, that is whether or not they arise through the process of SR & ED.

Topics and taglines
Topic
Income Tax Act - s. 248(1) - Scientific Research & Experimental Development
Tagline
novelty or innovation is not sufficient to illustrate technological advancement
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
337383
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a id=\"Zeuter\"></a>Zeuter Development Corp. v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2007 DTC 41, 2006 TCC 597 (Informal Procedure) <strong>[novelty or innovation is not sufficient to illustrate technological advancement]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}