Words and Phrases - "may"
YELLOW POINT LODGE LTD. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, 2020 FCA 195
A taxpayer, who donated an interest in ecologically sensitive land to two qualified donees in 2008, unsuccessfully argued that the gift was not made until 2009 for purposes of computing the five-year (now 10-year) carryforward period described in s. 110.1(1)(d)(iii), because it was not until 2009 that he received the certification from the Minister of the Environment as to the land's ecologically sensitive nature and value that was required under that provision. After confirming that the ecological gift instead was made in 2008 when ownership of the gifted property was transferred, Noël CJ went on to note (at para. 54) that “the existing process [under s. 118.1(11)] ensures that a taxpayer can claim a deduction in the year in which the gift is made and the subsequent five taxation years, even if there are delays in the final determination of the fair market value of the gifted property. In this regard, he stated (at paras. 49, 53):
While the permissive word “peut” (“may”) and the imperative word “shall” seem irreconcilable …, there is no discrepancy in this case. Both versions of subsection 118.1(11) compel the Minister to assess or reassess in order to give effect to a certificate or a court decision confirming or varying the certified fair market value. …
[T]he use of the word “peut” in the French version illustrates how “an official who is permitted to do a thing may, in addition, be obliged to do it” (Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes …). … Although the English text does not use the word “may” to denote the fact that the Minister is allowed to assess out of time, the statutory permission is equally present because the obligation to assess out of time necessarily brings with it the right to do so. So read, both texts require the Minister to abide by a fair market value certificate or the final court decision confirming it or varying it, and for that purpose, allow the Minister to assess out of time. …
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 110.1 - Subsection 110.1(1) - Paragraph 110.1(1)(d) - Subparagraph 110.1(1)(d)(iii) | ecological gift was made in the year its ownership was transferred rather than subsequently when the certification conditions under s. 110.1(1)(d)(ii) were met | 310 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - French and English Version | "peut" (may) in French version accorded with a sense of the English version's "shall" | 80 |
8 October 2008 Internal T.I. 2008-0269581I7 - statute-barred refund
The corporate taxpayer requested that CRA exercise its discretion under any of ss. 220(2.1), 220(3) and 221.2(1) to refund an overpayment where the taxpayer had not filed its tax return within the three year time period specified in s. 164(1). In rejecting this request, CRA stated:
[T]the Ministerial discretion contained in subsections 220(2.1) and 220(3) is only applicable to provisions such as subsection 150(1). Accordingly…subsections 220(2.1) and 220(3) have no application to subsection 164(1).
Furthermore:
[S]ubsection 221.2(1) may not be used to re-appropriate an overpayment that cannot be refunded once the three year period contained in the preamble to subsection 164(1) has lapsed.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 164 - Subsection 164(1.5) | "may" establishes CRA discretion | 128 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 220 - Subsection 220(2.1) | request to extend filing deadline | 70 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 220 - Subsection 220(3) | request to extend filing deadline | 70 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 221.2 - Subsection 221.2(1) | request to re-appropriate | 88 |
Sherman v. The Queen, 2000 DTC 1523 (TCC)
In affirming the taxpayer's ability to deduct charitable credits in computing his AMT without also deducting them in computing his liability for tax under Division E, Hamlyn TCJ. stated (at p. 1525):
"Parliament's choice of the word 'may be deducted' is clear and precise: 'may' is permissible [sic] and not mandatory. The words do not lend themselves to an interpretation 'may be deducted and were deducted'".