Pétroles Dupont Inc. v. Canada
The appeal is dismissed because the evidence established the excise tax was charged once and subsection 23(9.1) of the Excise Tax Act lawfully applies where a distributor converts tax‑exempt heating oil to taxable diesel; the Minister’s refusal to refund was consistent with binding authority and correct statutory...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 FCA 65
- Parties
- Appellant: Les Pétroles Dupont Inc.; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 February 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Excise Tax Refund Appeal / Appeal From Federal Court to Federal Court of Appeal; Judgment Delivered
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs against the appellant.
- Legal Topics
- Excise Tax Refund, Excise Tax Act S.23(9.1), Single Incidence Tax, Diversion of Fuel, Judicial Review of Tax Assessment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Les Pétroles Dupont Inc.
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Excise Tax Refund Appeal / Appeal From Federal Court to Federal Court of Appeal; Judgment Delivered
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Minister erred in denying a refund of excise tax collected and remitted for 2003 in the amount of $544,777.41
- 2 Whether the excise tax at issue is a single incidence tax
- 3 Whether a distributor can effect diversion of heating oil into diesel oil for excise tax purposes
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the evidence established the excise tax was charged once and subsection 23(9.1) of the Excise Tax Act lawfully applies where a distributor converts tax‑exempt heating oil to taxable diesel; the Minister’s refusal to refund was consistent with binding authority and correct statutory interpretation.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs against the appellant.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs awarded to the Respondent against the Appellant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Pétroles Dupont Inc. v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2011-02-21 Neutral citation 2011 FCA 65 File numbers A-68-10 Decision Content Federal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale Date: 20110221 Docket: A-68-10 Citation: 2011 FCA 65 CORAM: NOËL J.A. TRUDEL J.A. MAINVILLE J.A. BETWEEN: LES PÉTROLES DUPONT INC. Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on February 21, 2011. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 21, 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: MAINVILLE J.A. Federal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale Date: 20110221 Docket: A-68-10 Citation: 2011 FCA 65 CORAM: NOËL J.A. TRUDEL J.A. MAINVILLE J.A. BETWEEN: LES PÉTROLES DUPONT INC. Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 21, 2011) MAINVILLE J.A. [1] This is an appeal from the judgment of Lemieux J. cited as 2010 FC 72 which dismissed the appellant’s action pursuant to section 81.28 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15 challenging the decision of the Minister of National Revenue to deny it a refund in the amount of $544,777.41 representing the excise tax which it collected and remitted on the sale and delivery to its customers of diesel fuel for the 2003 year. The dismissal also extended to the joined actions which Lemieux J. listed in appendix A to his judgement. [2] We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed, principally for the reasons ably set out by Beaudry J. in W.O. Stinson & Son Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2005 FC 1427, 281 F.T.R. 307 and which were fully adopted by Lemieux J. in his reasons for judgment. [3] Counsel for the appellant however made additional arguments which were not before Beaudry J., namely that the excise tax in issue is a single incidence tax and that diversion of heating oil into diesel oil for excise tax purposes cannot be effected by the appellant. [4] On the single incidence argument, we agree with Lemieux J. at paragraph 29 of his reasons that the evidence in this case is that the tax was only charged once. Concerning the diversion argument, we are all of the view that subsection 23(9.1) of the Excise Tax Act contemplates the situation where a distributor has acquired heating oil exempt from tax and changes the status of the product from tax exempt to taxable in order to sell to an end purchaser who wishes to acquire diesel fuel. [5] We therefore see no reason to interfere with the judgment of Lemieux J. [6] The appeal will consequently be dismissed with costs against the appellant. “Robert M. Mainville” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-68-10 STYLE OF CAUSE: LES PÉTROLES DUPONT INC. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: February 21, 2011 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A. TRUDEL J.A. MAINVILLE J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: MAINVILLE J.A. APPEARANCES: Michael Kaylor FOR THE APPELLANT Jacques Savary FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPELLANT Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT