The taxpayer paid taxable dividends in its 2005 to 2006 taxation years but missed the three-year deadline to apply for dividend refunds. Graham J found that Tawa Developments applied, so that there was no reduction in the taxpayer's RDTOH. Consequently, dividends paid by taxpayer in its 2010 to 2012 years generated dividend refunds as claimed by the taxpayer.
Thus, the taxpayer was successful in its submission that the "dividend refund" in s. 129(1)(a) was the "refund" actually paid and not, as the Minister submitted, the "amount" calculated under the s. 129(1)(a) formula, whether it was paid or not. Graham J (in the face of some submissions not made in Tawa) found that, although "dividend refund" is used inconsistently in the Act in ways that could support both "refund" and "amount" meanings, he agreed with the purposive analysis in Tawa.