Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Minister of National Revenue, (2001) 199 F.T.R. 293 (TD)

• Judge: MacKay, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 14, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 199 F.T.R. 293 (TD)

Twentieth Century Fox v. MNR (2001), 199 F.T.R. 293 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.083

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (applicant) v. The Minister of National Revenue (respondent)

(T-540-99)

Indexed As: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

MacKay, J.

January 30, 2001.

Summary:

A taxpayer sought a refund of branch tax on the ground that it was exempt because its principal business was communications. The Minister refused the request for a refund on the ground that its principal business was filmed entertainment. The taxpayer applied for mandamus to compel the Minister to refund the tax.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. Alternatively, if there was jurisdiction, there was no overpayment and furthermore, the taxpayer's principal business was not communications.

Courts - Topic 4034

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Prerogative relief, injunctions, etc. - The Canadian branch of a U.S. corporation, distributed films and television programs it produced - The corporation paid tax on the Canadian branch's income for the taxation years 1991 to 1995 - The corporation sought a refund on the ground that it was exempt because its principal business was communications - Revenue Canada denied the request on the ground that the corporation's principal business was filmed entertainment - The corporation applied for mandamus to compel Revenue Canada to refund the tax - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that it lacked jurisdiction respecting prerogative relief where a statutory appeal process was provided in the Act - See paragraphs 10 to 16.

Courts - Topic 4049

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Income tax matters - [See Courts - Topic 4034 ].

Evidence - Topic 7017

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Affidavits - The Canadian branch of a U.S. corporation, distributed films and television programs it produced - The corporation paid tax on the Canadian branch's income for the taxation years 1991 to 1995 - The corporation sought a refund on the ground that it was exempt because its principal business was communications - Revenue Canada denied the request on the ground that the corporation's principal business was filmed entertainment - The corporation proffered the affidavit of an expert in the academic study of communication in support of its argument that its principal business was communications - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the affidavit was unnecessary and was not admissible - See paragraphs 22 to 24.

Income Tax - Topic 6770

Computation of tax - Rules for corporations - Definitions - Canadian branch of foreign corporation - The Canadian branch of a U.S. corporation, distributed films and television programs it produced - The corporation paid tax on the Canadian branch's income for the taxation years 1991 to 1995 - The corporation sought a refund on the ground that it was exempt because its principal business was communications - Revenue Canada denied the request on the ground that the corporation's principal business was filmed entertainment, not communications - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that it lacked jurisdiction respecting prerogative relief where a statutory appeal process was provided in the Act - Alternatively, if there was jurisdiction, the corporation had failed to establish that there was an overpayment and furthermore, the taxpayer's principal business was not communications - See paragraphs 10 to 29.

Income Tax - Topic 8084

Returns, assessments, payment and appeals - Judicial review - Bars - Statutory appeal - [See Courts - Topic 4034 ].

Cases Noticed:

Minister of National Revenue v. Parsons (1984), 84 D.T.C. 6345 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Bechthold Resources Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (1986), 1 F.T.R. 123; 86 D.T.C. 6065 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Hart et al. v. Minister of National Revenue (1986), 4 F.T.R. 176; 86 D.T.C. 6335 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Danielson v. Minister of National Revenue (1986), 7 F.T.R. 37; 86 D.T.C. 6495 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Optical Recording Co. v. Minister of National Revenue (1990), 116 N.R. 200; 90 D.T.C. 6647 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Haskowich v. Minister of Communications (1993), 93 D.T.C. 5008 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Minister of National Revenue v. Heavyside (1996), 206 N.R. 206; 97 D.T.C. 5026 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Vancouver Island Peace Society v. Canada, [1994] 1 F.C. 102; 64 F.T.R. 127 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Goldman (1979), 30 N.R. 453; 108 D.L.R.(3d) 17 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18.5 [para. 10].

Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, sect. 164(1)(a)(ii), sect. 164(1)(b), sect. 164(7)(b) [para. 18]; sect. 219(2)(b)(ii) [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka and Lederman, The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 634, 635 [para. 23].

Counsel:

Joel Nitikam and Lori Matheson, for the applicant;

William Mah, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Fraser Milner, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This application was heard on March 14, 2000, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before MacKay, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on January 30, 2001.