According to this witness, this confusion may have allowed a few companies to benefit from a retroactive determined value. According to him, cases involving the retroactive approval of a determined value confirm this retroactivity. It was not until 1988 that Revenue Canada opted for non-retroactivity. Counsel for the respondent again pointed out the stipulation of non-retroactivity in Memorandum ET 202. Setting aside the question of retroactivity, he argued that this was not a case where an error had been made when the amount, as in this case, was paid by the taxpayer in accordance with the Act.
Determined values are only administrative concessions.
The Tribunal is a creature of statute. As such, its jurisdiction and the powers it may exercise must be found in statutory instruments such as the Excise Tax Act and any regulations enacted thereunder. The Tribunal is of the opinion that these documents reflect an administrative policy adopted by Revenue Canada and for which there is no statutory or regulatory authority. Accordingly, the determined value method is without legal authority, and the Tribunal would be outside its jurisdiction to disregard the provisions of the Act in favour of its use. During the period covered by this appeal, the appellant paid the tax on the sale price in accordance with section 50 of the Act.