Forms
Subsection 2(2)
Administrative Policy
23 June 2015 Interpretation 144489
A federally-incorporated charity which managed its activities out of a single office in “Province 1” was resident for HST purposes in Province 1.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 132.1 - 132.1(3) | federally-incorporated charity resident where office located | 242 |
12 June 2014 Ruling 133588r [30 continuous-days test for use of substantial equipment]
The Charity, which was incorporated in Participating Province X, was found not to have a permanent establishment in Participating Province Y, i.e., what, by virtue of s. 2(2) of the New Harmonized Value-added Tax System Regulations, No. 2, would be a permanent establishment under Part IV of the ITA Regs if Charity's activities were a business.
In commenting on Reg. 400(2), CRA stated:
…A fixed place of activities includes a determined or ascertained space in which there is some presence or routine over which the charity has some degree of control and in which some undertaking or operations of the charity occur. … It does not mean that the place of activities must exist for a long time or be located in a durable building; for instance, a temporary field office on a construction site could be a fixed place of activities.
…Generally, where a charity uses (rented or owned) substantial machinery or equipment in a province either for 30 continuous days or for 90 cumulative days in a 12-month period, the charity would meet [the] requirement [in Reg. 400(2)(e)].
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Regulations - Regulation 400 - Subsection 400(2) - Paragraph 400(2)(e) | 30 continuous-days test for use of substantial equipment | 187 |
Section 13
Administrative Policy
GST/HST Memorandum 13.5 Non-creditable Tax Charged January 2017
Public service body acquiring software programming services for use in two provinces
Example 7 references a PSB that is charged at the Ontario rate of 13% on software programming services acquired by it for “use” 80% at its Ontario head office and 20% at one of its offices in PEI – and goes on to note that the PSB would be required to self-assess itself for the 2% higher PEI HST rate on the 20% portion for use in PEI, before then calculating its s. 259 rebate.
NOTICE 266 Draft GST/HST Technical Information Bulletin, Harmonized Sales Tax "Self-assessment of the provincial part of the HST in respect of property and services brought into a participating province" 9 September 2011
Sofware acquired by NPO for use in two provinces
Example 47For a single fee of $10,000, a supplier in Ontario supplies software by way of licence to a non-profit organization that is resident in Ontario for use exclusively in its exempt activities by its employees located at its head office in Ontario and at one of its offices in Nova Scotia. The software is supplied electronically over the Internet and there are no restrictions with respect to where the software may be used. The business address of the non-profit organization in Canada that is obtained by the supplier in the ordinary course of its business that is most closely connected with the supply is in Ontario. The supply of the software is therefore made in Ontario and the supplier collects HST at a rate of 13% in respect of the supply. The extent to which the software is acquired by the non-profit organization for use in Ontario is 60% and the extent to which the software is acquired by the non-profit organization for use in Nova Scotia is 40%.As a resident of a participating province that is a recipient of a taxable supply of intangible personal property made in a province, the non-profit organization is required to self-assess tax under Division IV.1 in respect of the property based on the extent to which the property is acquired for use in any participating province (Nova Scotia) for which the provincial rate is higher than the provincial rate of the province in which the supply was made (Ontario). The amount of tax payable by the non-profit or ganization is equal to $80 (2% (10% Nova Scotia provincial rate – 8% Ontario provincial rate) × $10,000 (the value of the consideration for the supply) × 40% (the extent to which the non-profit organization acquired the property for use in Nova Scotia)).
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 220.08 - Subsection 220.08(1) | 6 |
Subsection 27(6)
See Also
Gestions Adlexco Ltée v. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2023 QCCQ 5625
The appellant (“Adlexco”), which was the property manager for a commercial property of the two co-owners made a joint election (which the ARQ accepted as valid) pursuant to QSTA s. 346 (similar to ETA s. 273) to be the “operator” of such joint venture (a “JV”). The ARQ assessed to impose recapture of input tax refunds on all (rather than only 60%) of the relevant inputs acquired by Adlexco as operator pursuant to QSTA s. 206.1 (similar to ETA s. 236.01), on the basis that one of the co-owners (Sasco, with a 60% co-ownership interest) was a “large business.” QSTA 551.2 (somewhat similar to s. 27(6) of the New Harmonized Value-added Tax System Regulations, No. 2) provided that the operator is deemed to be a large business in respect of the goods and services it acquires during the period in which the JV election is in effect, in the course of the activities for which the JV agreement was entered into.
In finding that Adlexco was subject to full rather than only 60% recapture of such ITRs, and in accepting the ARQ submission that the presence in the JV of a large business (Sasco) “contaminated” the JV (para. 46, TaxInterpretations translation), Lachapelle JCQ stated (at paras. 45, 49):
The fact that each co-venturer signed a separate form means only that Adlexco was appointed by each joint venturer to account for QST. This does not alter the fact that there was only one joint venture agreement entered into and signed by all the … joint venturers. …
There was no intention on the part of the legislator to provide for the existence of more than one joint venture, nor to calculate inputs according to the participation of each of the joint venturers.
Administrative Policy
28 March 2013 Interpretation Case No. 141341
In finding that in the situation where the operator under a joint venture is not a large business and one of the three joint venture participants is a large business, the purchase of electricity by the operator for $100,000 plus HST of $13,000 would result in the recapture of the provincial component of HST based on the proportionate (33 1/3%) interest of the large business participant, CRA stated:
…as one of the participants is a large business and the joint venture election is in effect, the operator would be deemed to be a large business in respect of purchases made on behalf of the large business participant pursuant to subsection 27(6) of the Regulations. Therefore, the amount of ITC to be recaptured would be limited to the large business participant's interest, or $2,666.64 ($8,000 [HST Provincial Component] X 33 1/3 %).
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 236.01 - Subsection 236.01(2) | 130 |
Paragraph 28(1)(d)
Administrative Policy
6 June 2014 Ruling 143085 [loaner vehicles are provided as part of a single supply of repair services – no RITC]
Corp A, which is a large business per s. 236.01, and s. 27 of the New Harmonized Value-Added Tax System Regulations, No.2 (the Regulations), sells and leases vehicles through its Dealership), reimburses the Dealerships for basic warranty repair services, and repairs performed under "Service Contracts," and reimburses Dealerships for providing loaner cars (from the Dealership's lot or, failing that, from a car rental agency) for their basic warranty customers whose vehicles cannot be driven and must be kept at the Dealership overnight.
After ruling that Corp A is not required to recapture the input tax credits with respect to the provincial part of the HST paid to the Dealerships for loaner vehicle charges included in the weekly electronic claim statements for repair services performed on vehicles, CRA stated:
[Corp A] is acquiring a single supply of a repair service that is subject to the GST/HST. The charge in respect of a loaner vehicle under either the basic warranty coverage or Service Contract is part of the consideration for the supply of the repair service. …
Subsection 30(1)
Administrative Policy
National Commodity Tax, Customs and Trade Section – 2014 GST/HST Questions for Revenue Canada, Q. 22
A large registered business with a monthly reporting period acquires a specified property or service in Ontario in January of Year 1, is charged 13% HST, but does not claim the input tax credit until its return for January of Year 2, in which it also reports the corresponding recaptured input tax credit. Before noting that CRA would assess a penalty for failure to report the RITC in the February of Year 1 return, CRA noted:
[U]nder paragraph 30(1)(d) of the NHVATS No. 2 Regulations, the large business would have been required to report the RITC no later than the reporting period following the reporting period that the tax became payable… or… was paid, whichever is earlier. [T]he assumption is made that the earlier of these two reporting periods would be the February Year 1 reporting period.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Regulations - Electronic Filing and Provision of Information (GST/HST) Regulations - Section 7 | penalty for delayed reporting of ITC and RITC | 172 |
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 284.01 | penalty for delayed reporting of ITC and RITC | 170 |
Section 35
Administrative Policy
GST/HST Memorandum 16-4 "Anti-avoidance Rules" 20 February 2015
General paraphrase.
Section 40
Cases
Canada v. Cheema, 2018 FCA 45
In order to satisfy lender requirements, the individual taxpayer persuaded a friend (Dr. Akbari) to jointly sign an agreement for the purchase of a new home. S. 40, when read in light of ETA s. 254(2)(b), effectively required that each individual who becomes liable under the purchase agreement is acquiring the new house as the primary place of residence of that individual or a relation. “From the beginning it was understood that Dr. Akbari would not have any real interest in the property” (para. 4) and, indeed, at the closing of the purchase Dr. Akbari executed a declaration of trust in favour of the taxpayer.
Stratas JA (speaking for the majority, with Webb JA dissenting) nonetheless found that Dr. Akbari’s co-signing of the purchase agreement precluded access to the rebate. The fact that Dr. Akbari “had no beneficial interest in the property” was “irrelevant” (paras. 93-94) as what mattered was that Dr. Akbari became liable to the builder under the purchase agreement when he signed it.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 254 - Subsection 254(2) - Paragraph 254(2)(b) | third party who did not intend to occupy was liable at the purchase agreement time | 355 |
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 133 | s. 133 deemed an acquisition of future home on co-purchaser's signing purchase agreement, notwithstanding that no beneficial interest received on closing | 268 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Ordinary Meaning | Court should not depart from usual interpretation principles in seeking a sensible result | 128 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Ease of Administration | interpretation that favours administrative efficiency is to be favoured | 206 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 104 - Subsection 104(1) | "legal acquirer" rather than intended beneficial owner was the purchaser | 219 |
Section 41
Subsection 41(2)
Forms
RC7190-ON GST190 Ontario Rebate Schedule
Section 46
Subsection 46(6)
Paragraph 46(6)(a)
See Also
Morgan v. The King, 2025 TCC 36 (Informal Procedure)
Whether the taxpayer had timely filed his application for the Ontario component of the new housing rebate pursuant to s. 256.21(1) for the home of him and his spouse turned on when the substantial renovation of that home was substantially completed (which started the running pursuant to s. 46(6)(a) of the New Harmonized Value Added Tax System Regulations, No. 2 of the two year period for filing the application) and on when the application was filed (which, pursuant to s. 334(1) was deemed to be the mailing date).
CRA considered that the substantial completion date was January 13, 2020, being the date that the local town conducted its final inspection of the property. The taxpayer argued for January 25, 2000 (the date on which the couple moved back into the home), pointing to the resumption of phone and gas services on that date, and the installation of a concrete driveway pad over six months later. In concluding in favour of the Crown’s position, Yuan J noted (at para. 18) that “the nature of the work completed after January 13, 2020 was not critical to occupancy of the Property.”
Regarding the application’s mailing date, the CRA evidence was that the application had been stamped with January 31, 2022 by the CRA mailroom and that the CRA policy was to treat incoming mail as having been sent five business days before its receipt by the CRA mailroom. Yuan J was not satisfied that the application was actually received by the CRA mailroom on the date of stamping, and also noted that in a January 7, 2022 press release, Canada Post advised that customers may experience COVID-related service delays.
Yuan J preferred the evidence of the taxpayer’s accountant, who testified that she had mailed various client related items on December 31, 2021 and who provided a Canada post receipt dated December 31, 2021 for two items which showed that a piece of letter mail had been sent to the Sudbury TSO. Before allowing the taxpayers appeal, Yuan J, stated (at para. 41):
I have difficulty imagining what better evidence the CRA could reasonably expect an applicant to produce as proof of filing where the application was submitted by regular mail … .
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 334 - Subsection 334(1) | application was mailed about a month before it was stamped as received by the CRA mailroom | 259 |
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 256 - Subsection 256(2) | substantial completion of home renovation occurred on municipal inspection approval | 196 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(7) - Paragraph 248(7)(a) | CRA presumption that application was mailed no more than 5 business days before stamped as received by CRA mailroom, was rejected | 63 |
Section 55
Subsection 56(3)
Section 57
Subsection 57(4)
Paragraph 57(4)(c)_
Subpargraph 57(4)(c)(iv)
See Also
Metrogate Inc. v. The Queen, 2018 TCC 91
The question for determination in the context of a Rule 58 motion was whether the appellant (“Metrogate”) could take the cost to it of land into account in determining whether a condominium complex (which was a specified residential complex as defined in s. 55(1) of the New Harmonized Value-added Tax System Regulations, No. 2 (the “Regulations”)) qualified under s. 57(4)(c)(iv) of the Regulation as a condominium complex for which “the construction … of the condominium complex … is, immediately after June 2010, 25% or more …completed”. The Crown appeared to acknowledge that this test was to be applied based on the proportion of the total project costs that had been incurred to that date, and that the issue was whether the cost of the land could be taken into account (along with the building costs) for this purpose.
In finding that the land costs should be so included, Favreau J first discussed 1096288 Ontario, and then stated (at para. 22):
Based on the foregoing, the applicant’s position appears to be the correct one on the textual analysis. The Regulations specifically use the term “condominium complex” and “residential complex” which are defined to include the land. The applicant’s position is the only one which is supported by case law. The land is a necessary element in any construction.
After noting that the context was ambiguous, Favreau J turned to purpose and stated (at paras 31, 34, 36, 40, 41 and 56):
…The … rebate has no correlation with actual RST incurred, which the Minister acknowledges by allowing labour costs to be factored in to the calculation.
The purpose of the Regulations is to rebate estimated embedded RST in the complex based on the percentage completion of the construction.
The only indication of what is meant by embedded comes in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement … which specifically refers to provincial sales tax charged on building materials as an example of a building with embedded RST…
This …implies that a home has RST embedded in it because of provincial sales tax charged directly on supplies used in the construction of the home. This passage does not consider indirect RST embedded in a supply (though it doesn’t rule it out either). As a result, I conclude that the purpose of the rebate is to reimburse for RST directly incurred but not indirect RST.
… [Thus] the contextual and purposive analysis is more ambiguous but I am convinced that the wording of the legislative provisions is not ambiguous enough to have any of the respondent’s arguments succeed.
Subsection 58(1)
Administrative Policy
RC4231 "GST/HST New Residential Rental Property Rebate” October 2016
Estimated Provincial Levy
Administrative Policy
Production
Administrative Policy
27 June 2013 Interpretation Case No. 146556
The baling of cardboard (i.e., receiving loose cardboard boxes and putting them through a baler to create bales which are easier to store and transport) "does not change the form, qualities or properties of the cardboard to such a degree that there is a new product created," and therefore would not qualify as production.