Dimension J.M.M. Inc. v. Canada, (2005) 348 N.R. 108 (FCA)

• Judge: Décary, Létourneau and Pelletier, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: May 03, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 348 N.R. 108 (FCA);2005 FCA 168

Dimension JMM Inc. v. Can. (2005), 348 N.R. 108 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.R. TBEd. MY.027

Dimension J.M.M. Inc. (demanderesse/appelante) v. Sa Majesté La Reine (défenderesse/intimée)

(A-231-04)

Charles Beaupré (demandeur/appelant) v. Sa Majesté La Reine (défenderesse/intimée)

(A-230-04; 2005 FCA 168; 2005 CAF 168)

Indexed As: Dimension J.M.M. Inc. v. Canada

Federal Court of Appeal

Décary, Létourneau and Pelletier, JJ.A.

May 10, 2005.

Summary:

The appellants appealed a decision of a tax court judge respecting his interpretation of s. 153(4) of the Excise Tax Act which dealt with the payment of GST when a supplier ac­cepted used tangible property on a trade-in.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 4933

Goods and services tax (incl. harmonized sales tax) - Taxable goods and services - Consideration - Used tangible personal prop­erty trade-ins - A client returned tan­gible personal property that he had pur­chased to the supplier - The sup­plier gave the client a credit note for the future pur­chase of tangible personal prop­erty - The sup­plier sought to apply s. 153(4) of the Excise Tax Act which dealt with the pay­ment of GST when a supplier accepted used tangible property on a trade-in (i.e., tax the difference between the selling price and trade-in price) - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Act stipulated that the sup­plier was required, at the time of the trade-in by the client, to supply designated or identified tangible personal property that the client purchased or had undertaken to pur­chase - The sup­plier's credit note, sup­ported by an under­taking to honour it, was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Act - See paragraphs 1 to 9.

Cases Noticed:

Nova Scotia (Minister of Finance) v. McCurdy (2001), 192 N.S.R.(2d) 225; 599 A.P.R. 225 (C.A.), dist. [para. 4].

Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Oxner (1993), 121 N.S.R.(2d) 237; 335 A.P.R. 237; [1993] 5028 E.T.C. (C.A.), dist. [para. 4].

Robinson Plymouth Chrysler Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Finance) (1998), 173 N.S.R.(2d) 261; 527 A.P.R. 261 (C.A.), dist. [para. 4].

Minister of National Revenue v. Riendeau (1991), 132 N.R. 157 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Simard-Beaudry Inc. v. Minister of Nation­al Revenue (1971), 71 D.T.C. 5511 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, sect. 153(4) [para. 2].

Counsel:

Richard Généreux, for the appellant;

Louis Cliche, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Généreux Côté, Drummondville, Quebec, for the appellant;

Veillette Larivière, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard at Montreal, Que­bec, on May 3, 2005, before Décary, Létourneau and Pelletier, JJ.A., of the Feder­al Court of Appeal. Létourneau, J.A., re­leased the following reasons for judgment for the court on May 10, 2005.