Member-only session

The Act Literally Said Yes. The Court Said No

Live date December 2025
Live time 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. ET
Duration 90 minutes

Session starts in:

--
days
--
hours
--
mins
--
secs

This session is included with your CTM membership.

Canadian autumn forest

See what to expect

⏱

Live session + Q&A

105 minutes of teaching plus 15 minutes of live Q&A discussion.

▶

Recording access

The webinar recording will be available shortly following the live event.

☷

Detailed slide deck

Includes tax tables, worked examples, planning notes, technical references, and supporting resource materials.

✓

CPD certificate

A CPD certificate is available after successful quiz completion.

Real-world planning question

Who gets the deduction when one taxpayer pays another's tax-dispute fees?

A taxpayer paid roughly $6,000 to fund another person’s Federal Court of Appeal tax appeal, then claimed $6,211 on her own return. Paragraph 60(o) restricts who pays and what the fees must relate to, but says nothing expressly about whose assessment must be in dispute. CRA denied the claim, upheld that denial through objection, and she took the issue to General Procedure.

What we'll work through

01

The words that looked decisive

  • Fees for preparing, instituting or prosecuting an objection or appeal
  • The restriction on who pays; the restriction on what the fees cover
  • The limitation absent from the paragraph: whose assessment
  • Why ordinary files never surface the question
02

Why the court said no

  • Latent ambiguity revealed by text, context and purpose
  • Provisions where Parliament expressly permits payment on behalf of another
  • Paragraph 56(1)(l) and the same-taxpayer coupling
  • A costs award no one reports, and a deduction still claimed
  • Pecuniary stake as the test the court declined to apply
03

The mischief the provision was meant to fix

  • 1964 Ways and Means resolution, Budget Speech, and 1966 Hansard
  • Appeal costs as a deterrent for smaller taxpayers
  • Pre-1972 wording and the 1981 split into subparagraphs
  • How far the legislative record could carry the taxpayer
04

Sherman, Flood, and sixty years of thin authority

  • The only two decided cases directly on point
  • Flood's allowed deduction and Bowman C.J.'s reading of the text
  • Four cumulative reasons Flood is weaker authority than it appears
  • Successor and alter ego as the thread beneath both cases
05

A repeatable method for an unfamiliar provision

  • Both language versions, the neighbours, and the companion provision
  • Tracing renumbering and amendments back to the enacting words
  • Finding the mischief in budget documents and Hansard
  • Recording the administrative position, including its absence
  • Why the method narrows an answer without guaranteeing one
06

What this changes on a file

  • The first question when fees relate to another taxpayer's assessment
  • Documenting a pecuniary or legal interest, and what documentation cannot do
  • One General Procedure decision, no appellate authority yet

What this case teaches beyond paragraph 60(o)

The facts are narrow — one person paid another's tax-dispute fees. The reasoning is not.

A Clear Text Is Not a Clear Answer

The words favoured the taxpayer and she still lost. Context and purpose can displace a reading that looks unambiguous, which makes the plain words the start of the analysis rather than the end of it.

Know What Your Authority Actually Decided

A principle repeated for twenty years in an Informal Procedure decision that also turned on a second, independent ground. Checking what a case rests on is part of relying on it.

Purpose Can Change the Reading

Legislative purpose does not replace the words, but it can change how those words are understood. Finding the problem Parliament was trying to solve can explain why an apparently straightforward reading does not survive the full analysis.

Learn with Kim and Jay

Kim G C Moody

Tax Authority

Kim G C Moody

LinkedIn

FCPA, FCA, TEP

  • Former Chair, CBA/CPA Joint Committee
  • Former Chair, Canadian Tax Foundation
  • Parliamentary committee witness
Jay Goodis

TAX STRATEGY & OPTIMIZATION

Jay Goodis

LinkedIn

CPA, CA

  • CPA Ontario Emerging Leader
  • Parliamentary committee witness
  • National tax & keynote speaker

Questions before joining?

Yes. CTM memberships can be purchased for a team or firm, with per-user pricing based on the number of members. See Team & Firm pricing.

You'll receive a confirmation email for your registration, along with a link to access the live session.

If you cannot attend live, the recording will be made available in your CTM account shortly after the session ends, so you can watch on demand.

Yes. The detailed slide deck and supporting materials will be posted shortly before the live session. When the recording is available, you'll be notified by email.

You can access this session and its materials through your CTM account for as long as your CTM membership is active.

Yes. A CPD certificate is available after successful quiz completion.

Yes. We will take questions during the live Q&A portion after the teaching session.

No. CTM members don't need to register for live sessions. We'll email you the link to join automatically. If you don't see it, check your spam folder or contact us.

Ready to register

This session is included with your CTM membership, along with the full member library.

Questions about this course?