building

18 May 2022 Internal T.I. 2018-0788761I7 F - Amortissement – Travaux sur un bien loué et F&T -- summary under Subsection 1102(5)

The taxpayer, which subleased premises containing “Shells” consisting essentially of foundations, walls and roofs, installed wall and floor coverings and performed electrical, ventilation and plumbing work to make the premises suitable for use in its manufacturing and processing (“M&P”) operations. It took the position that the costs of the property added to the Shells for this work should be included in Class 29 rather than Class 13.

4 April 2005 Ruling Document No. 52246 -- summary under Subsection 191(3)

Ruling that a subsidized seniors' apartment was substantially renovated, so that s. 191(3) deemed the builder to make a taxable supply of the building. Given the limited degree of structural connectivity with an adjoining structure, the two structures were to be treated as separate buildings.

By services, 28 November, 2015

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. R., 97 DTC 422, [1997] 3 C.T.C. 2593 (TCC) -- summary under Paragraph 1(q)

Bowman TCJ. followed his earlier decision in Cadillac Fairview Corp. Ltd. in finding that density rights purchased by the taxpayer from a nearby church were an addition to the cost of land rather than building notwithstanding accounting evidence that such expenditures should have been added to the cost of the building and notwithstanding that, unlike the other case, a building actually was constructed.

By services, 28 November, 2015

British Columbia Forest Products Ltd. v. MNR, 71 DTC 5178, [1971] CTC 270 (SCC) -- summary under Paragraph 1(q)

Supporting piers, reinforced concrete foundations and chest walls which facilitated and were necessary for the production of paper nonetheless had no separate existence as tangible capital assets and instead formed part of buildings. Accordingly, they qualified as Class 3 rather than Class 8 assets.

Tanks and recovering units were "structures" and also fell within Class 3.

By services, 28 November, 2015

Swan Lake Recreation Resort Ltd. v. Registrant, Kamloops Land Title Office (1999), 174 DLR (4th) 549 (BCSC) -- summary under Class 1

Before going on to find that a mail box was not a "building" for purposes of the Condominium Act (B.C.), Cowan J. stated (at p. 565):

"In my view, the word 'building' ordinarily means a structure which is designed for use as a habitation or other purposes of occupation, or for the storage of commodities. Further, a 'building' ordinarily is relatively permanent, and relatively large in size."

By services, 28 November, 2015

Dew Engineering & Development Ltd. v. The Queen, 96 DTC 1765 (TCC) -- summary under Subsection 37(8)

A portable laboratory composed of five modules connected to one another by bolts (and that were almost identical to the components of the walkways used at the Ottawa International Airport) was found (at p. 1770) not to be a building given that it was "not installed and intended to remain in a particular location".

By services, 28 November, 2015

Mailloux v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), docket A-390-98 (FCA) -- summary under Paragraph 37(7)(f)

Because a hair dryer was a large building, expenditures for its acquisition did not qualify notwithstanding that it was an experimental prototype. In response to a submission that it was a structure not a building, Létourneau noted that it met the (French) dictionary definition of a building as "any construction intended to serve as shelter and protection" or "construction, generally of large dimensions, ... used to accommodate humans, animals or things".

Term Tree