transaction

The Crown argued that CP's act of denominating the debentures in Australian dollars was in and of itself a transaction and that it amounted to an “arrangement” under the s. 245(1) definition of "transaction" - and then argued that such "separate transaction", namely the designation of borrowing in Australian dollars, was entered into solely for tax purposes. In rejecting this submission, Sexton JA stated (at paras. 24-26):

The parent company (Brixton plc) of the taxpayer (Vocalspruce) subscribed for zero coupon notes of group companies, and transferred the notes to Vocalspruce in consideration for the issuance by Vocalspruce of shares whose nominal value was equal to the notes' discounted value, but with the shares being issued at a premium which would be paid up by capitalizing the profit to be realized by Vocalspruce on the notes, with such sums to be appropriated to Vocalspruce's share premium account.

In finding that a resolution of the shareholders to wind-up a company was a "transaction" for purposes of s. 8(3) of the 1948 Act, Thurlow J. stated (p. 1071) that the word "transactions" is not:

With respect to the interpretation of s. 548(1) of the Criminal Code, Houlden J.A. stated (p. 557) "the words 'the same transaction', in my opinion, mean the series of connected acts extending over a period of time which, the Crown alleges, proved the commission of the offence charged in the information." [Followed in R. v. Cancor Software Corp., 90 DTC 6457 at 6459 (Ont CA)]

The taxpayer obtained a guarantee of the obligations of a US-resident sister corporation ("Fusion") to a US bank for the purpose for the purpose of capitalizing Fusion's operations. Accordingly, when it agreed to repay the loan to Fusion when Fusion became insolvent and the guarantee otherwise would have been called (which would have adversely affected the taxpayer's with the guarantor), the resulting loss to it was a capital loss. The principle (at para.

Webb, J. found that the Minister was not entitled to reassess the taxpayer on the basis that s. 75(2) imputed income of a family trust to the taxpayer with such income of the family trust, in turn, arising under the "fapi" provisions of the Act, given that there was no transaction involving the taxpayer and the non-resident corporation that gave rise to the alleged fapi. Webb, J. quoted, with approval a statement in MNR v. Dufresne, 67 DTC 5105 (Ex. Ct.) that "transaction" meant "any act having operative effect in relation to a business or property" and stated (at para.