Des Groseillers and BMTC have been granted go away to attraction to the Supreme Court docket of Canada.
Below s. 422, the disposition of a property by a taxpayer is “deemed to be made on the truthful market worth of the property on the time of the disposition,” the place the taxpayer disposes of it to “any particular person by reward.” Des Groseillers argued s. 422 didn’t apply to his case as a result of ss. 47.18 to 58.0.7 was a “full code” that held all the required guidelines for calculating the revenue ensuing from the issuance of securities to workers. Based on the appellant, these sections additionally coated “all of the authorized fictions that the legislature thought of essential to undertake in assist of these guidelines,” stated the SCC.
Des Groseillers additionally stated s. 54 of the Taxation Act excluded the appliance of s. 422. Below s. 54, if an individual has agreed to promote or situation its securities to somebody with whom they do “not deal at arm’s size,” they’re “deemed to obtain no profit beneath or due to the settlement aside from as offered on this division.”
The SCC said that Quebec Court docket of Attraction Justice Man Cournoyer had accurately analysed the problems. He had stated that s. 50 does two issues. It determines the time at which the sort of profit will likely be taxed, and, by treating the switch as employment revenue, it establishes an exception to the “common rule” {that a} property disposition generates a capital acquire or loss. Part 422(c)(ii) attributes a worth to the consideration, stated Justice Cournoyer, however that “has no impression on these authorized fictions,” and there’s “no precise battle” between ss. 50 and 422.
Part 422’s “broad formulation” signifies the legislature’s objective was “to attribute to any disposition of property by an individual a worth equal to the truthful market worth of the property for the needs of computation of revenue,” stated Justice Cournoyer. The legislature additionally didn’t exclude the a part of the laws coping with worker inventory choices from s. 422’s software when the Taxation Act was enacted in 1972, or in subsequent amendments. The legislature’s “silence on this regard is telling” as a result of there are different specific references to the non-applicability of s. 422 elsewhere within the Act.
