Finally, the appellant argued that the amount in question was taxable and in fact was taxed in the hands of Aviation, thereby resulting in double taxation contrary to the rule stated by Marceau J.A. in Winter at 593 (which was referred to and applied in David Smith v. The Queen, 93 D.T.C. 5351): . . . it is fair to infer that subsection 56(2) may receive application only if the benefit conferred is not directly taxable in the hands of the transferee. Indeed, as I see it, a tax-avoidance provision is subsidiary in nature; it exists to prevent the avoidance of a tax payable on a particular transaction, not simply to double the tax normally due nor to give the taxing authorities an administrative discretion to choose between two possible taxpayers. [Footnotes omitted.]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.