in relation to

The taxpayer, which produced and sold potash from mines in Saskatchewan, was subject to both a profit tax and to the making of “base payments” under the Mineral Taxation Act, 1983 (Saskatchewan). In finding that the base payments made in its 1999 to 2002 taxation years did not satisfy the requirement under s.

Westcoast reimbursed (through Manulife as its agent) employees who had incurred various health care services – including some which were GST/HST-taxable, namely, acupuncture, massage therapy, naturopathy and homeopathy services. On appeal, Westcoast did not challenge the finding below that the employees were the recipients of such taxable services, so that Westcoast did not satisfy the requirement in s. 169, for generating input tax credits (ITCs) for the tax, of having acquired such services.

The members of the Appellant (which was a non-share Delaware corporation resident in Canada) included Canadian and U.S.-resident individuals who had been sold “Resort Points,” which could be periodically applied under a booking system to obtain access to particular resort condo units ("Vacation Homes") beneficially owned by the Appellant in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. The Appellant paid various expenses respecting the Vacation Home operations which it recovered through “Annual Resort Fees” charged to its members.

The appellant acquired a US public company ("Keith") in a Delaware merger (in which Keith Industries merged into the appellant's US subsidiary, with the latter as the survivor, and Keith shareholders received shares of the appellant), which required the appellant's shares to be listed on the NYSE. In finding that the appellant was entitled to input tax credits for GST on the fees incurred by it in connection with this listing, C Miller J found that ss. 186(1) and 186(2) both applied, so that the appellant was deemed to incur the fees for use in its commercial activities.

The appellants were required to relocate their employees to different locations as part of their business. In addition to reimbursing direct moving costs, their relocation policy entailed paying the relocated employees a moving allowance in respect of incidental expenses (e.g., draperies, blinds and carpeting for the new premises, costs of cancelling and entering into new service contracts and the replacement of items which could not be shipped.) The appellants claimed ITCs in respect of the moving allowances on the basis of s. 174.

Essentially the appellant's only activity was to indirectly finance the mineral exploration activities of six Polish subsidiaries of its immediate wholly-owned Luxembourg subsidiary ("Luxco") by lending funds (raised through private placements) to Luxco, with such loans being converted to mandatorily redeemable preferred shares at the end of each year. The appellant had no employees or premises of its own, but was charged fees for consulting services provided by its executives and consultants as well as being charged for professional and other incidental services.