In the context of the Capital Tax Regulation, what are the implications of the Federal and provincial interpretation bulletins?

While there is merit in looking to these bulletins as a guide to interpretation where there is ambiguity, they are in no way binding on the court. See Vaillancourt v. Deputy M.N.R.,[1991] 3 F.C. 663 (F.C.A.) at 674. Certainly the examples delineated in para. 19 of the bulletin, although consistent with the interpretation which I believe gives effect to the plain meaning of the language of the section, do not constitute a limited list. Nor does the fact that some provinces have adopted the interpretation of the federal government inform the court’s interpretation of the meaning of “normally” in the context of the capital tax regulation. On the issue of consistency, once there is a court-mandated interpretation for one province, it is desirable and likely that the same provision in other provinces’ complementary legislation will be interpreted the same way. In other words, the policy objective of a uniform interpretation is achieved by court interpretation of the “plain meaning” of identical language in the same way, not by any mandate imposed by interpretation bulletins.