fixture

26 May 2022 External T.I. 2019-0813761E5 - Taxable Canadian property-solar and wind projects -- summary under Paragraph (a)

Were Canadian-situs solar electric power generating projects (consisting of a leasehold interest, solar panels, steel racks and metal posts, and wires, inverters and transformers, collectively the “Solar Equipment”) and wind electric power generating projects (consisting of a leasehold interest, foundation. and wind turbine including tower) taxable Canadian property (TCP)?

In finding that the Solar Equipment consisted of fixtures and, thus, was TCP under para. (a) of the definition (referring to “real … property situated in Canada”), CRA first indicated:

26 May 2022 External T.I. 2019-0813761E5 - Taxable Canadian property-solar and wind projects -- summary under Paragraph (a)

Canadian-managed funds purchased from time to time, from non-residents, Canadian-situs solar electric power generating projects (consisting of a leasehold interest, solar panels, steel racks and metal posts, and wires, inverters and transformers, collectively the “Solar Equipment”) and wind electric power generating projects (consisting of a leasehold interest, foundation. and wind turbine including tower).

16 May 2017 External T.I. 2016-0670661E5 - Capital Cost of De-icing Equipment -- summary under Class 43.1

New aluminum shingles with an electric cable (the “Equipment”) will be attached over existing asphalt shingles on the portion of a roof immediately beneath existing solar panels (which satisfy the conditions of s. (d)(vi) of Class 43.1)), so as to melt snow accumulations, which otherwise would hinder the functioning of the solar panels.. Would the cost of the Equipment be eligible for inclusion in Class 43.2?

After noting other more general requirements for the claiming of capital cost allowance, CRA stated:

By services, 14 January, 2016

Stack v. T. Eaton Co., [1902] O.J. No. 155 (Div. Ct.) -- summary under Real Property

After reviewing the then-leading decisions (including Bain v. Brand (1876), 1 App. Cas. 762, Holland v. Hodgson (1872), L.R. 7 C.P. 328, Hobson v. Gorringe, [1897] 1 Ch. 182, and Haggert v. Town of Brampton, [1897] S.C.J. No. 73, Meredith CJ synthesized the governing principles and articulated the following five rules respecting when property was a fixture, which he characterized as "settled law":

By services, 14 January, 2016

Ontario Hydro v. Ontario (Ministry of Revenue), [1996] O.J. No. 333, 60 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1080, aff’d on other grounds [1999] O.J. No. 1723, 44 O.R. (3d) 1, 120 O.A.C. 184, 88 A.C.W.S. (3d) 507 -- summary under Real Property

Borins J found that microwave telecommunications and power line carrier equipment which for the most part was attached by screws to metal racks which, in turn, were bolted to the floor in the Pickering nuclear facility of the taxpayer, were not fixtures, and instead were tangible personal property subject to Ontario retail sales tax. He stated (at paras. 7-8):

fixture