Canada v. Anchor Pointe Energy Ltd., 2007 FCA 188 (2007)
Linked as:
Extract
Canada v. Anchor Pointe Energy Ltd., 2007 FCA 188 (2007)
Date: 20070515
Docket: A-329-06Citation: 2007 FCA 188CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.EVANS J.A.SHARLOW J.A.BETWEEN:HER MAJESTY THE QUEENAppellantandANCHOR POINTE ENERGY LTD.RespondentHeard at Vancouver, British Columbia , on May 1, 2007.Judgment delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia , on May 15, 2007.REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: L É TOURNEAU J.A.CONCURRED IN BY: EVANS J.A.SHARLOW J.A.Date: 20070515Docket: A-329-06Citation: 2007 FCA 188CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.EVANS J.A.SHARLOW J.A.BETWEEN:HER MAJESTY THE QUEENAppellantandANCHOR POINTE ENERGY LTD.RespondentREASONS FOR JUDGMENTLÉTOURNEAU J.A.The Issue on Appeal[1] Who bears the onus of proof with respect to assumptions of fact first relied on by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) in confirming a reassessment pursuant to subsection 165(3) of the Income Tax Act (Act)?[2] This was the question put on consent, by way of motion, to the Tax Court of Canada (Tax Court) pursuant to paragraph 58(1)(a) of the Tax Court of Canada General Rules (General Procedure) , S.D.R./90-688a (Rules). In a decision rendered on July 21, 2006, the motions judge determined that the burden to prove such assumptions was on the Crown: see Anchor Pointe Energy Ltd. v. Her Majesty the Queen , 2006 TCC 424 ( Anchor Pointe TCC ). Hence the appeal seeking a reversal of that decision.The Facts[3] In 1991, five predecessors of the respondent acquired seismic data and, in their income tax returns filed for the 1991 taxation year, claimed the costs of the data as a “Canadian Exploration Expense” (CEE). Eventually the five predecessors amalgamated to form th...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
