Supermarché Ste-Croix Inc. v. Canada
A-711-94
Marceau J.A.
13/2/97
3 pp.
Appeal from T.C.C. decision upholding Minister's reassessment under Income Tax Act, s. 12(1)(x)(viii)-Provision establishes tests for distinguishing between inducement payment taxable in full as income and inducement payment treated as proceeds of disposition of eligible capital property, hence taxable only in part-Expression "acquisition of interest in business" must be understood as direct interest in actual activities of business-Interest payer acquired in business equals worth to him of obligation assumed by appellant, which operates grocery store, first, to purchase supplies from wholesaler in future up to amount of certain quotas, second, to give him first option to purchase shares issued from its capital stock if any transaction in relation to those shares planned-To give expression "interest" in business meaning of advantage to be derived from business's activities inconsistent with usual meaning attributed in legal language to words "interest" and "droit" when used in regard to property, as indicated in definitions provided by legal dictionaries-Would also mean depriving provision of any possibility of actually playing role assigned to it: distinguishing between two types of inducement payments-Appeal dismissed-Income Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, s. 12(1)(x)(viii).