debt

In 2001 (before the three annual fiscal periods in issue) the appellant (CIBC) outsourced part of its Visa-card transaction processing and payment services to an arm’s length non-resident (“GPDI”) so that, in a typical transaction in which a Canadian cardholder presented their CIBC Visa card to a Canadian merchant, GPDI would process the point-of-sale information received from the merchant and transmit it to CIBC for credit authorization, transmit the authorization (assuming no “decline”) back

The defendant (“Whitecap Energy”) was an Alberta corporation which had been wound up into its sole shareholder (“Whitecap Resources”) and dissolved. The Attorney General sought to revive Whitecap Energy pursuant to s. 208 of the Business Corporations Act (Alberta) in order that it could be assessed by CRA which, in turn, would permit an assessment of Whitecap Resources under ITA s. 160. Principally at issue was whether the Attorney General had standing as an “interested party,” which was relevantly defined in ABCA s.

An offshore fund ("SLT"), in which the taxpayer had an interest, invested in instruments (labelled as "Notes") of non-resident subsidiaries of Canadian banks that had been issued for US $998 million and guaranteed by those banks. They did not bear interest and provided for a payment on maturity (15 years after their issuance, subject to earlier repayment after having given 367 days’ notice) that reflected the performance of a matching actively-managed portfolio of assets (the “Reference Assets”) held by affiliates of the obligors. If the Notes constituted "debts" for purposes of s.

After quoting (at para.55) the statement in Sattva that “While the surrounding circumstances are relied upon in the interpretive process, courts cannot use them to deviate from the text such that the court effectively creates a new agreement,” Owen J found that, contrary to the taxpayer’s understanding of the arrangements as reflected in its financial statements, the arrangements at issue had not in fact been structured so as to give rise to a debt owing to the taxpayer by a corporation that subsequently became bankrupt

Partly as a delayed consequence of CRA’s seizure of computers and dental equipment of a dental practice and the misplacing of records when his practice subsequently was closed, the dentist was only able to collect a portion of the revenues that he had included in his 2005 to 2008 returns. However, the Tax Court found that he was not entitled to a bad debt deduction on the basis inter alia that he was unable to identify which specific debts had gone bad. In agreeing with this finding, and before going on to find that there was no reversible error, Boivin JA stated (at para. 5):