T-0.1 - Act respecting the Québec sales tax

Section 42.0.22 Disposition versions

2022-06-08

42.0.22. Where a contestation is filed or an appeal is initiated by a financial institution under the Tax Administration Act (chapter A-6.002) and the contestation or appeal pertains to an assessment under this Title for a reporting period in a fiscal year in respect of an issue relating to the determination, under any of sections 42.0.15 to 42.0.17, 42.0.20 and 42.0.21, of the operative extent or the procurative extent of a business input, the burden of establishing the following facts is on the financial institution:

(1)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the first paragraph of section 42.0.15 or 42.0.17, the financial institution used a specified method consistently throughout the fiscal year;

(2)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the second paragraph of section 42.0.15 or 42.0.17, no specified method applied to the business input and the other attribution method used by the financial institution was fair and reasonable and used consistently by the financial institution throughout the fiscal year;

(3)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the first paragraph of section 42.0.16, the financial institution used a direct attribution method consistently throughout the fiscal year;

(4)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the second paragraph of section 42.0.16, no direct attribution method applied to the business input and the other attribution method used by the financial institution was fair and reasonable and used consistently by the financial institution throughout the fiscal year;

(5)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with section 42.0.20, the particular methods referred to in that section were used consistently by the financial institution, and as specified in the application referred to in subparagraph 1 of the first paragraph of section 42.0.20, throughout the fiscal year; and

(6)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with section 42.0.21, the particular methods referred to in that section are fair and reasonable, were used consistently by the financial institution, and as specified in the application referred to in the first paragraph of section 42.0.21, throughout the fiscal year, and, where the Minister of National Revenue has provided modifications to those methods under paragraph e of subsection 27 of section 141.02 of the Excise Tax Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15), the modified methods are not fair and reasonable for the purposes of that determination.

2012, c. 28, s. 46; 2020, c. 12, s. 141; 2021, c. 36, s. 187; 2022, c. 23, s. 186.

2021-12-10

42.0.22. For the purposes of a contestation filed or an appeal initiated by a financial institution under the Tax Administration Act (chapter A-6.002) and pertaining to an assessment under this Title for a reporting period in a fiscal year in respect of an issue relating to the determination, under any of sections 42.0.15 to 42.0.17, 42.0.20 and 42.0.21, of the operative extent or the procurative extent of a business input, the burden of establishing the following facts is on the financial institution:

(1)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the first paragraph of section 42.0.15 or 42.0.17, the financial institution used a specified method consistently throughout the fiscal year;

(2)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the second paragraph of section 42.0.15 or 42.0.17, no specified method applied to the business input and the other attribution method used by the financial institution was fair and reasonable and used consistently by the financial institution throughout the fiscal year;

(3)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the first paragraph of section 42.0.16, the financial institution used a direct attribution method consistently throughout the fiscal year;

(4)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the second paragraph of section 42.0.16, no direct attribution method applied to the business input and the other attribution method used by the financial institution was fair and reasonable and used consistently by the financial institution throughout the fiscal year;

(5)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with section 42.0.20, the particular methods referred to in that section were used consistently by the financial institution, and as specified in the application referred to in subparagraph 1 of the first paragraph of section 42.0.20, throughout the fiscal year; and

(6)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with section 42.0.21, the particular methods referred to in that section are fair and reasonable, were used consistently by the financial institution, and as specified in the application referred to in the first paragraph of section 42.0.21, throughout the fiscal year, and, where the Minister of National Revenue has provided modifications to those methods under paragraph e of subsection 27 of section 141.02 of the Excise Tax Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15), the modified methods are not fair and reasonable for the purposes of that determination.

2012, c. 28, s. 46; 2020, c. 12, s. 141; 2021, c. 36, s. 187.

2021-01-01

42.0.22. For the purposes of a contestation filed or an appeal brought by a financial institution under the Tax Administration Act (chapter A-6.002) and pertaining to an assessment under this Title for a reporting period in a fiscal year in respect of an issue relating to the determination, under any of sections 42.0.15 to 42.0.17, 42.0.20 and 42.0.21, of the operative extent or the procurative extent of a business input, the burden of establishing the following facts is on the financial institution:

(1)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the first paragraph of section 42.0.15 or 42.0.17, the financial institution used a specified method consistently throughout the fiscal year;

(2)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the second paragraph of section 42.0.15 or 42.0.17, no specified method applied to the business input and the other attribution method used by the financial institution was fair and reasonable and used consistently by the financial institution throughout the fiscal year;

(3)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the first paragraph of section 42.0.16, the financial institution used a direct attribution method consistently throughout the fiscal year;

(4)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the second paragraph of section 42.0.16, no direct attribution method applied to the business input and the other attribution method used by the financial institution was fair and reasonable and used consistently by the financial institution throughout the fiscal year;

(5)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with section 42.0.20, the particular methods referred to in that section were used consistently by the financial institution, and as specified in the application referred to in subparagraph 1 of the first paragraph of section 42.0.20, throughout the fiscal year; and

(6)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with section 42.0.21, the particular methods referred to in that section are fair and reasonable, were used consistently by the financial institution, and as specified in the application referred to in the first paragraph of section 42.0.21, throughout the fiscal year, and, where the Minister of National Revenue has provided modifications to those methods under paragraph e of subsection 27 of section 141.02 of the Excise Tax Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15), the modified methods are not fair and reasonable for the purposes of that determination.

2012, c. 28, s. 46; 2020, c. 12, s. 141.

2012-12-07

42.0.22. For the purposes of an appeal brought by a financial institution under the Tax Administration Act (chapter A-6.002) and pertaining to an assessment under this Title for a reporting period in a fiscal year in respect of an issue relating to the determination, under any of sections 42.0.15 to 42.0.17, 42.0.20 and 42.0.21, of the operative extent or the procurative extent of a business input, the burden of establishing the following facts is on the financial institution:

(1)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the first paragraph of section 42.0.15 or 42.0.17, the financial institution used a specified method consistently throughout the fiscal year;

(2)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the second paragraph of section 42.0.15 or 42.0.17, no specified method applied to the business input and the other attribution method used by the financial institution was fair and reasonable and used consistently by the financial institution throughout the fiscal year;

(3)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the first paragraph of section 42.0.16, the financial institution used a direct attribution method consistently throughout the fiscal year;

(4)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with the second paragraph of section 42.0.16, no direct attribution method applied to the business input and the other attribution method used by the financial institution was fair and reasonable and used consistently by the financial institution throughout the fiscal year;

(5)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with section 42.0.20, the particular methods referred to in that section were used consistently by the financial institution, and as specified in the application referred to in subparagraph 1 of the first paragraph of section 42.0.20, throughout the fiscal year; and

(6)  in the case of the determination of the operative extent or the procurative extent of the business input in accordance with section 42.0.21, the particular methods referred to in that section are fair and reasonable, were used consistently by the financial institution, and as specified in the application referred to in the first paragraph of section 42.0.21, throughout the fiscal year, and, where the Minister of National Revenue has provided modifications to those methods under paragraph e of subsection 27 of section 141.02 of the Excise Tax Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15), the modified methods are not fair and reasonable for the purposes of that determination.

2012, c. 28, s. 46.