Zainul and Shazma Holdings Ltd. o/a Holiday Inn Hinton v. The Queen, 2004 DTC 3015, 2004 TCC 527 (Informal Procedure) -- summary under Subparagraph 212(1)(d)(i)

A lump-sum "application fee" paid by the taxpayer to a non-resident corporation, which carried on a business of granting Holiday Inn franchises, at the time of the taxpayer's (ultimately successful) application for a Holiday Inn franchise was not subject to Part XIII tax. O'Connor J. accepted the submission of the taxpayer that the words "including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, any payment" in the preamble suggested that payments in s. 212(1)(d)(i) could not be broader than those implied by the opening words (referring to "rent royalty, or similar payment"); and that the application fee was not a rental or royalty but, rather, some form of compensation to the non-resident for the extensive review performed by it in dealing with the application. Furthermore, he accepted the taxpayer's submission that s. 212(1)(d)(i) did not apply even if read more broadly, because the taxpayer's rights to use the franchisor's property arose only after the Licence Agreement was executed, and after the time of payment of the application fee, so that that the application fee was not paid for the "use" of any property.