deposit

The taxpayer incurred various pre-feasibility expenses in relation to a large and complex gold-bearing deposit in BC including for engineering services related to the geotechnical stability of rock (relevant to any open pit slope design), modelling of costs of any mine, studies of water management control and of mine waste management and tailings impoundment, underground mine analysis and design, detailed design and operating cost estimates to assess whether the project might potentially be economically viable, geotechnical drilling services and studies regarding access roads and slurry sys

The auditing firm (“DMCL”) for the appellant (“IHI”) obtained the agreement of IHI, as evidenced by a December 7, 2007 email sent by DMCL to IHI, to fix the audit fee at a level higher than that originally estimated. In the meantime, some payments by IHI (including an initial “retainer” of $25,000) had been made in round figures, without any indication that GST at 6% had been added. About six months later, DMCL prepared an invoice which added GST at the post-2007 rate of 5%.

A supplier (Menova) received substantial down payments (described as “deposits”) respecting its sale of solar array projects, and then became insolvent before earning more than a fraction of the down payments. Menova then issued “credit memos” to the business customer (North Shore) for the value of the unperformed work.

When a customer of the taxpayer ordered a "made-to-measure" suit he was asked for a deposit (although the receipt given to him showed only the purchase price and the balance owing, and did not use the word "deposit"). Ungoed-Thomas J. held that because "'deposit' bears a perfectly well and commonly known meaning of security for completion of the purchase" (p.

Certificates of deposit, bearer deposit notes, swap deposit confirmations and bankers' acceptances were held to be "loans and advances to other corporations" rather than "cash on deposit with ... a savings bank" within the meaning of the definition of taxable paid-up capital in the Corporation Tax Act (B.C.). Carrothers, J.A.

The registrant was in the business of manufacturing kitchen and bathroom furniture. Its usual business terms required customers to pay 30% up front, 60% on completion and 10% on delivery. The registrant contended that the 30% payment was a deposit, and therefore exempt from GST collection.

Hogan J. reviewed at length the distinction between a deposit and a down payment in common law, and the related distinction between an arrhes and an accompte in Quebec civil law, and concluded (at paras. 45-46):

The appellant bought and resold the right and obligation to acquire lots from a land developer. Hogan J found that the "non-refundable" deposits collected thereon were each a "debt security" under s. 123(1), given that the collection of a sum under a contract as a "deposit" implies an obligation to return the deposit if the collector does not perform the contract - in this case, if the land developer were unable to complete the lots on time (para. 24).