The appellant brought a motion for the production of internal government documents, arguing they were relevant extrinsic evidence for interpreting the definition of 'Canadian Resource Property' in subsection 66(15) of the Income Tax Act.
The respondent opposed, arguing the documents were not considered during the audit and lacked institutional quality.
The Tax Court of Canada allowed the motion in part, ordering the disclosure of specific memoranda that possessed sufficient institutional quality to aid in statutory interpretation.
