McLarty v. The Queen, 2005 DTC 217, 2005 TCC 55, rev'd 2006 DTC 6340, 2006 FCA 152, aff'd supra. -- summary under Paragraph (a)

By services, 28 November, 2015

The taxpayer purchased an undivided interest in seismic data and related business assets for $100,000 payable, as to $15,000, in cash, and as to the balance by a promissory note the interest and principal on which would be paid, for the first two years, only through the proceeds of sale of licensed copies of the data and from cash flow from a drilling program being conducted by the user of the data and, following two years, out of 60% of proceeds of sale of the data and of petroleum rights acquired pursuant to the drilling program.

The taxpayer's expenditure was $100,000 rather than $15,000 given that the data was required to be sold (so that the promissory note did not represent a contingent liability). Such expenditure qualified as CEE given that the user utilized the data to determine where not to drill and the taxpayer had a reasonable expectation that the data would be used for the purpose of exploration in light inter alia of statements contained in the offering memorandum that had been provided to him.

Note
rev'd on other grounds, 2006 DTC 6340, 2006 FCA 152, aff'd supra.
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
338559
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>McLarty v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2005 DTC 217, 2005 TCC 55, reversed on other grounds, 2006 DTC 6340, 2006 FCA 152, affirmed supra.",
"field_override_history": true,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}