Income or loss from a source or from sources in a place

Legislative history

The source-by-source rule is a creature of the 1948 Act, where it sat among the definitions; the rule in its present two-part form, with its “wholly applicable” and “reasonably be regarded as applicable” tests and its separate treatment of a business or employment split between places, was enacted in 1960 to serve the non-resident and foreign tax credit computations; the 1972 reform moved it to section 4, added losses and offices, and added the Subdivision E carve-out and the rule against double counting; and the amendments since 1985 have widened subsection 4(3) to all sources and to trust designations, moved the double-counting rule to section 248, and adjusted the list of excepted section 60 deductions. The Justice Laws consolidation lists four amendments after 1985 and serves three point-in-time versions (31 August 2004, 14 December 2007, and 26 June 2013), which differ only in paragraph 4(3)(a). What follows is drawn from what was digitally available on Justice Laws, on parl.ca, on publications.gc.ca, and in the Library of Parliament’s historical bills, debates, and journals; where only a bill as introduced was available, and not the enacted statute, that is said. Once the printed statute volumes for 1948, 1952, 1960, and 1972 can be examined, this history will be updated.

• The Income War Tax Act, 1917. Bill 117 had no rule computing income source by source or place by place. Its only place-based rule was clause 3(3), which measured the income of a non-resident carrying on business in Canada as “the net profit or gain arising from the business of such person in Canada”. The 1948 cross-reference column marks the source definition as new, so the 1917 Act is at most a distant ancestor of the non-resident computation now made under paragraph 4(1)(b) and section 115.
• The Income Tax Act, S.C. 1948, c. 52 (Bill 338), clause 127(1)(av). Section 4 of the 1948 Act (“income for a taxation year from a business or property is the profit therefrom for the year”) is the ancestor of today’s section 9, not of section 4. The source rule was a definition, under the marginal note “Income from a source”: “a taxpayer’s income from a business, employment, property or other source of income or from sources in a particular place means the taxpayer’s income computed in accordance with this Act on the assumption that he had during the taxation year no income except from that source or those sources of income and was entitled to no deductions except those related to that source or those sources”. It spoke of income only, not loss, did not name an office, had a single deduction test (“related to that source”), and had no rule for a business or duties split between places. The enacted text was not digitally available.
• R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, s. 139(1)(az), then s. 139(1a) and (1b), added by S.C. 1960, c. 43 (Bill C-68). In the 1952 revision the definition became paragraph 139(1)(az); the evidence is the 1960 bill, which repeals that paragraph and sets out its text in the explanatory note. Bill C-68, given first reading on 6 June 1960 and royal assent on 1 August 1960, replaced it by new subsections 139(1a) and (1b), applicable to the 1960 and later taxation years. Subsection (1a)(a) introduced the present deduction tests, “such deductions as may reasonably be regarded as wholly applicable to that source or those sources and … such part of any other deductions as may reasonably be regarded as applicable to that source or those sources”, and (1a)(b) the rule for a business or duties “carried on or … performed, as the case may be, partly in one place and partly in another place”. Subsection (1b), the ancestor of subsection 4(3), deemed all Part I deductions, except those under paragraphs 11(1)(l), (la), (o), and (t) and section 79B, to be applicable wholly or in part to a source or place “for the purposes of sections 31 and 41”, the predecessors of sections 115 and 126. The explanatory note said the new subsections implemented paragraph 8 of the Income Tax Resolution: “that for the 1960 and subsequent taxation years the rules for determining income from a source be amended to specify the deductions that shall be made in computing the income of a non-resident person from a business or employment in Canada and in computing income from sources outside Canada for the purpose of calculating the foreign tax credit allowed to a person resident in Canada.” The chapter number rests on the margin of the next amending bill, which lists “1960, c. 43” as the latest amending Act. Searches of every House bills volume from 1960-61 to 1970 found no further amendment to subsections 139(1a) or (1b). The enacted text was not digitally available. The Supreme Court described these provisions, through Pigeon J. in dissent, as having “application when income from a specific source is to be separately ascertained or dealt with” (Midwest Hotel Co. v. M.N.R., [1974] S.C.R. 1119, p. 1126), and the Tax Court has explained that they were Parliament’s answer to Interprovincial Pipe Line Co. v. M.N.R., [1959] S.C.R. 763, and were applied against the same taxpayer in [1968] S.C.R. 498 (Société Générale, 2016 TCC 131, paras. 46–49).
• S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, s. 1 “4” (Bill C-259, first reading 30 June 1971). New section 4 took subsection (1) from “Subsection 139(1a), modified”, adding “loss” throughout and “office” to the list of sources; subsection (2), marked “New”, provided that no deductions permitted by sections 60 to 63 were applicable to a source or place; subsection (3), from “Subsection 139(1b), modified”, applied only to paragraph (1)(b) for the purposes of sections 115 and 126 and excepted paragraphs 60(b), (c), (d), and (i) “or … section 146”; and subsection (4), marked “New”, provided that “unless a contrary intention is evident, no provision of this Part shall be read or construed to require the inclusion or to permit the deduction” of an amount already included or deducted under another provision of Part I. Section 9 of the Income Tax Application Rules applies the new text to the 1972 and later taxation years. The words “or by section 146” in the bill’s subsection (3) do not appear in the 1985 print, and the 1985 source note cites no amending Act; they were presumably dropped before enactment, but neither the Committee of the Whole’s lists of changes nor the Statutes of Canada volume was available to confirm it.
• R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), s. 4. The revision modernized the wording (“he” and “his” became “the taxpayer” and “the taxpayer’s”) and printed the source note “1970-71-72, c. 63, s. 1”4”” alone, so no amending Act between 1972 and the revision’s cut-off touched the section; in particular S.C. 1984, c. 1, which amended section 3, did not amend section 4. The revised Part I applies to taxation years ending after November 1991 (Income Tax Application Rules, s. 73(a)).
• S.C. 1991, c. 49, s. 2 (Bill C-18, royal assent 17 December 1991), restated as S.C. 1994, c. 7, Sch. II, s. 2. Subsection 4(4) was re-enacted for 1990 and later years to add “either directly or indirectly” and “for the year or any preceding taxation year”. The Department of Finance said the amendment was “intended to confirm that, except where a contrary intention appears, amounts included or deducted in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year are not required to be included or eligible to be deducted in a subsequent year” (Explanatory Notes, May 1991, clause 2).
• S.C. 1994, c. 21, s. 1 (Bill C-27, royal assent 15 June 1994). Subsection 4(2) was extended from “sections 60 to 63” to “sections 60 to 64” for 1989 and later years, the first year of the attendant care deduction in section 64. Subsection 4(3) was rewritten in its present form: it now applies the whole of subsection 4(1), not only paragraph (1)(b); it applies for the purposes of subsections 104(22) and (22.1) as well as sections 115 and 126; its exceptions became paragraphs 60(b) to (o), (p), (r), and (v) to (w); and new paragraph 4(3)(b) provides that trust deductions under subsections 104(6) and (12) do not apply to a source in a country other than Canada. It applies to taxation years ending after 12 November 1981, with a different reading for years beginning before 1993. The Department of Finance explained that subsection 4(3) was amended “so that it applies to all sources of income, whether or not the source of income relates to more than one place”, that the expanded exception list “includes deductions in respect of Canadian deferred income plans, payments from which will ultimately be taxable in Canada”, so that “an individual who pays foreign tax in respect of a transfer to such a plan” keeps access to the foreign tax credit, and that the reference to subsections 104(22) and (22.1) ensures the rule “applies for the purposes of the ‘flow-through’ of foreign source income from a trust to its beneficiaries” (Explanatory Notes, August 1993, clause 1).
• S.C. 1996, c. 21, s. 2 and s. 60(3) (Bill C-36, Income Tax Budget Amendment Act, royal assent 20 June 1996). Subsection 4(4) was repealed and replaced by subsection 248(28), both for taxation years ending after 19 July 1995. The new subsection extends the rule from Part I to the whole Act, adds taxable income and taxable income earned in Canada, and adds paragraphs (b) and (c) for tax payable and amounts considered paid on account of tax. The Department of Finance described subsection 248(28) as “broader in scope than subsection 4(4)” and added that “where an amount is deducted for a taxation year that is statute-barred and has not been disallowed, the same amount may not be deducted again for a subsequent taxation year” (Explanatory Notes, December 1995, clause 2 and subclause 60(3)).
• S.C. 2007, c. 35, s. 101 (Bill C-28, Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, royal assent 14 December 2007). The end of the excepted range in paragraph 4(3)(a) moved from “(v) to (w)” to “(v) to (z)”, taking in the repayment deductions in paragraphs 60(x) (Canada Education Savings Act), (y) (Universal Child Care Benefit), and (z) (Canada Disability Savings Act), for the 2007 and later taxation years. No Finance note specific to the clause was located.
• S.C. 2013, c. 34, s. 169 (Bill C-48, Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, royal assent 26 June 2013). Paragraph 4(3)(a) was re-enacted with “apply” in place of “shall apply”, for the 2002 and later taxation years, reading “(v) to (x)” for years ending before 2007. This is the enactment of a 2006 proposal, first tabled as clause 47 of Bill C-10 in 2007, to except paragraph 60(x) from 2002 (Explanatory Notes, November 2006, clause 47). Nothing in section 4 has changed since.

Interpretation and application →

Interpretation and application

Section 4 is the second of the two “Basic Rules” with which Division B opens. Section 3 aggregates a taxpayer’s income and losses from every source in a fixed order; section 4 defines the per-source and per-place figures that section 3 aggregates. The Federal Court of Appeal has put the relationship this way: “under section 4, a taxpayer computes income or loss on a source-by-source basis, but only until the income or loss from each source has been determined. Once this is done, section 3 requires the taxpayer to combine the income and losses from all sources” (Canada v. Independent Order of Foresters, 2026 FCA 146, para. 56). The Court had earlier described it as “trite law that sections 3 and 4 of the Act, in conjunction with the rules set out in subdivisions (a) through (d) of division B, establish that the income of a taxpayer is to be determined on a source by source basis” (Canada v. Byram (FCA, 25 January 1999), para. 21). The Tax Court has said that section 4 “provides, in general terms, that a taxpayer’s income or loss is determined on a source-by-source basis, including the determination of income or loss from each separate business” (Independent Order of Foresters v. The King, 2023 TCC 123, para. 38), and that it requires taxpayers to compute the income or loss from each source as if it were the only source (Martin v. The King, 2024 TCC 153, paras. 43–44).

Paragraph 4(1)(a) states two assumptions. The first isolates the source: the taxpayer is taken to have had “no income or loss except from that source”. The second confines the deductions: only deductions “wholly applicable to that source” and “such part of any other deductions as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto” are allowed. The opening words, “for the purposes of this Act”, make the rule general, and the Tax Court has held that it therefore applies concurrently with sections 3 and 115 rather than after taxable income has been determined (Martin, para. 56). The isolation reading is confirmed by the family of provisions that use the same “no other source” language for particular purposes, subsections 146(4)(b), 146(10.1), 146.1(5), and 147.5(8), and paragraph 114(a), and by subsection 149(4), which the Federal Court of Appeal construed by analogy with section 4 as isolating a fraternal benefit society’s life insurance business from its other sources (Independent Order of Foresters, paras. 54–59).

The deduction limb is where most of the work is done. Which deductions are wholly or partly applicable to a source is a question of fact (Société Générale Valeurs Mobilières Inc. v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 131, para. 89, affirmed 2017 FCA 3, para. 10). Bowman A.C.J. dismissed the appeal of a draftsman whose only source was his employment and who claimed motor vehicle, travel, convention, and home-office expenses: “The evidence simply does not establish the test of ‘wholly or reasonably applicable’ in paragraph 4(1)(a)” (Lukasewych v. The Queen (TCC, 23 May 2001), para. 13). Where one asset serves a business and a personal purpose, the interest on money borrowed to acquire it must be apportioned, because paragraph 4(1)(a) “provides, in essence, that in computing income from a particular source one must allocate to that source only such deductions or such parts of deductions as are reasonably attributable thereto” (Tsiantoulas, as quoted in Heaps v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 130, para. 15); where the borrowed money is traced exclusively to the income-earning part, the whole of the interest is deductible and the security taken over the whole property is irrelevant (Heaps, paras. 13–17). The same source-by-source logic underlies the Federal Court of Appeal’s caution that, even where a provision has no “source” preamble, “a deduction cannot be so far removed from its corresponding income stream as to render its connection to the anticipated income tenuous at best” (Byram, para. 21), and the Tax Court’s holding that a requirement attached to a source, such as the “principally” test for a home office in subparagraph 8(13)(a)(i), “applies separately to each employment” so that percentages from different employers cannot be added (Bykov v. The King, 2024 TCC 36, para. 47 and note 14).

Paragraph 4(1)(b) applies the same two assumptions to a business carried on, or the duties of an office or employment performed, “partly in one place and partly in another place”. The Tax Court has described its effect in one sentence: “where income from a single source is earned in two different places, each place is considered a separate source of income” (Martin, para. 45). The paragraph is the mechanism by which a non-resident’s Canadian-source employment or business income is isolated, and it applies “to the same extent, to non-residents and residents of Canada” (para. 50). Its practical importance appears in the cases on athletes and executives who work in Canada for part of the year. A United States resident who was sent home by his Canadian employer on salary continuation was taxable in Canada only on the remuneration attributable to duties actually performed in Canada, paragraph 4(1)(b) providing “a formula for determining a non-resident’s income tax liability” under which “the Minister has no authority to tax the non-resident on income earned for the performance of duties outside of Canada, no matter who pays it” (Nonis v. The Queen, 2021 TCC 31, paras. 59 and 68). For non-resident baseball players who performed forty per cent of their duties in Canada and whose employer contributed part of their pay to retirement compensation arrangements, the correct sequence was “to first determine the compensation (both quantum and type) that is paid for the duties performed in Canada and to then determine what part or parts of that compensation would be included or excluded”, rather than to apply the Act to total pay and take forty per cent of the result (Canada v. Martin, 2026 FCA 144, paras. 22 and 43–44). For a business, “where a business is carried on partly in Canada and partly outside Canada, paragraph 4(1)(b) requires a reasonable allocation of the income, since only the taxable income earned in Canada must be determined under subparagraph 115(1)(a)(ii)” (Maya Forestales S.A. v. The Queen, 2005 TCC 66, para. 32). The paragraph cannot, however, be pressed into service to fragment a single computation that another provision makes on a whole-business basis: an argument that it required a separate inventory allowance at each grain elevator was rejected as a reliance on “provisions of the Act other than those directly in issue” (Cargill Ltd. v. Canada (FCA, 28 January 1998), paras. 17 and 19).

Subsection 4(2) removes the Subdivision E deductions in sections 60 to 64 from the source computation for all Part I purposes. These are deductions in computing income that attach to the taxpayer rather than to any activity, support payments, pension and RRSP transfers, moving and child care expenses among them, and they are taken under paragraph 3(c) after the per-source figures have been aggregated under paragraphs 3(a) and (b). The consequence is that a loss from a source under paragraph 3(d), and hence a non-capital loss under subsection 111(8), is never increased by a section 60 deduction. No reported decision construing subsection 4(2) was found; the resource deductions in sections 65 to 66.8, which are also in Subdivision E but outside the range “sections 60 to 64”, remain allocable to sources and are subject to their own allocation rule in paragraph 126(9)(b).

Subsection 4(3) reverses subsection 4(2) for four purposes: the trust designations in subsections 104(22) and 104(22.1), the non-resident computation in section 115, and the foreign tax credit in section 126. For those purposes, and subject to two qualifications, “all deductions permitted in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year for the purposes of this Part … apply either wholly or in part to a particular source or to sources in a particular place”. The first qualification is that the section 60 deductions in paragraphs (b) to (o), (p), (r), and (v) to (z) remain unallocated, so a non-resident may claim them in full after reporting all section 115 income (IT-420R3SR, item 3), and a resident’s foreign-source income for the credit is not reduced by them. The second, in paragraph 4(3)(b), is that a trust’s deductions for amounts paid or payable to beneficiaries under subsection 104(6), and for preferred-beneficiary allocations under subsection 104(12), do not reduce a source in a country other than Canada; where the trust designates foreign income to beneficiaries, subsection 104(22.2) reduces its foreign income instead. The Canada Revenue Agency’s reading is that “each deduction applied in calculating the taxpayer’s total income under section 3 that is not specifically referred to in the exceptions in subsection 4(3) must be allocated on a reasonable basis among all sources of income to which they can reasonably be applied, including those in foreign countries” (Folio S5-F2-C1, para. 1.85), and Form T2209 requires the taxpayer to subtract from foreign non-business income “a deduction you claimed under subsections 20(11) or 20(12) and under subsection 4(3) of the ITA relating to the foreign income”, including foreign union dues, foreign pension contributions, and foreign carrying charges. The operation of the rule in the treaty-credit setting was settled in Société Générale: the Canadian tax “appropriate to” Brazilian-source interest under a tax-sparing article was the tax on the net interest, because “the applicable test for determining which expenses are relevant to income from a source in a particular place is found in subsection 4(1)” (2016 TCC 131, paras. 88 and 93; 2017 FCA 3, paras. 8 and 12). The Tax Court’s account of the history is instructive: after the Supreme Court held in 1959 that the Act as it then stood did not require a separate computation of income from each source, so that interest on general borrowings did not reduce United States-source interest for the credit, Parliament enacted subsections 139(1a) and (1b), and the Supreme Court applied them in 1968 to deny the same taxpayer any credit; “these rules are now found in section 4 of the Act” (paras. 46–49).

Former subsection 4(4) was the Act’s general presumption against double inclusion and double deduction. It survives, enlarged, as subsection 248(28), and the case law on both is read together. The Federal Court of Appeal applied subsection 4(4) to prevent two adjusted cost base reductions arising from a single mistaken capital gains election, holding that “the fact that two statutory provisions have different objectives cannot, by itself, justify an inference that double taxation was intended” (Holder v. Canada, 2004 FCA 188, para. 12). It has described subsection 248(28) as enacted “because Parliament recognized that … a transaction may fall literally within the scope of two separate provisions and so be counted twice”, and as “intended to avoid such double counting unless the Income Tax Act clearly compels such a result” (Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Canada, 2004 FCA 361, para. 68; the Supreme Court reversed on another point, 2006 SCC 46, without discussing the subsection). The presumption has limits: it “cannot be used to allow a taxpayer to take advantage of a deduction for which he does not otherwise qualify”, and it speaks of the same taxpayer’s income, so that “a particular amount cannot be taxed in a taxpayer’s hands if it has already been taxed in that taxpayer’s hands” (Anstead v. Canada, 2005 FCA 315, paras. 9–10). The Tax Court has used the availability of the rule as an interpretive signal, preferring a reading of subsection 39(2) that does not produce double counting “that could only be remedied by subsection 248(28)” (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. The Queen, 2021 TCC 71, paras. 87 and 152, affirmed 2023 FCA 91), and has noted that the subsection “recognizes that two provisions can apply to one transaction” (4432002 Canada Inc. v. The Queen, 2022 TCC 101, para. 13).

Three points of construction remain open on the material read. First, whether a range such as “paragraphs 60(b) to (o)” includes decimal paragraphs such as (o.1), which the Department of Finance in 1993 described as allocable; the drafting has not been tested. Second, paragraph 4(3)(a) still names paragraph 60(r), repealed in 2024, a dead reference with no operative effect. Third, no decision was found construing subsection 4(2) or the trust limb of subsection 4(3), whose operation rests on the statutory text and the Finance notes.

← Legislative historyPolicy purpose and commentary →

Policy purpose and commentary

The section exists because the Act taxes income by source. The Royal Commission on Taxation, which proposed a comprehensive tax base, still accepted that “it will be necessary for one reason or another under our proposals, as it is under the present law, to determine the income from a particular source for a particular period”, and used “source” “to cover anything that leads to the receipt of income” (Report, 1966, vol. 3, p. 70). It identified the problem that subsection 4(3) and the foreign tax credit rules answer: “obviously business income for tax purposes in the source country need not be the same as business income for tax purposes in Canada”, and “a recomputation of the foreign source business income on the basis of Canadian rules could be an extremely complex procedure for the taxpayer, and yet, without such a recomputation, the amount included in the Canadian tax base would not properly reflect the Canadian rules for the determination of income” (vol. 4, p. 505). The 1960 resolution that produced subsections 139(1a) and (1b) stated the purpose plainly: to specify the deductions made in computing a non-resident’s income from a business or employment in Canada, and in computing a resident’s income from sources outside Canada for the foreign tax credit (Bill C-68, 1960, note to clause 33(5)). The Department of Finance’s 1993 notes describe the modern subsection 4(3) as ensuring that a taxpayer who pays foreign tax on a transfer to a Canadian deferred income plan keeps the credit, and as extending the source rules to the flow-through of foreign income by trusts; its 1995 notes explain the move of the double-counting rule to section 248 as a broadening to taxable income and tax payable and as a bar on deducting again, in a later year, an amount deducted in a statute-barred year.

The Canadian Tax Foundation catalogue lists work on the source rules and on the allocation of interest, including “Rethinking Canada’s Source Rules”, Canadian Tax Journal (1999), vol. 47, no. 5, p. 1077, and “Policy Forum: Interest Deductibility”, Canadian Tax Journal (2004), vol. 52, no. 4, p. 1130; the site refused automated access and these are recorded as catalogue entries only.

← Interpretation and applicationRelevant case law →

Relevant case law

• Canada v. Independent Order of Foresters, 2026 FCA 146. Section 4 is “the provision most similar” to subsection 149(4); under section 4 income is computed source by source only until each source’s income or loss is determined, after which section 3 combines them; the “no other source” family of provisions confirms the isolation reading (paras. 54–59). Reverses 2023 TCC 123. Leave status not verified.
• Canada v. Martin, 2026 FCA 144. Non-resident athletes: first determine the compensation, in quantum and type, paid for duties performed in Canada, then apply the Act to that part; records the Tax Court’s reliance on paragraph 4(1)(b) as requiring a place-by-place determination (paras. 22, 27, and 43–44). Affirms 2024 TCC 153.
• Martin v. The King, 2024 TCC 153. Section 4 is one of the two Basic Rules; each source is computed as if the only source; under paragraph 4(1)(b) each place is a separate source; subsection 4(3) refers expressly to section 115; section 4 applies equally to residents and non-residents and concurrently with sections 3 and 115 (paras. 43–46, 50–51, 56–57, and 96).
• Bykov v. The King, 2024 TCC 36. The “principally” requirement for a home office applies separately to each employment, each being a separate source under paragraph 4(1)(a) (para. 47 and note 14).
• Independent Order of Foresters v. The King, 2023 TCC 123. Section 4 provides for source-by-source determination including each separate business, but does not answer the effect of subsection 149(4) (paras. 38–39). Reversed in part, 2026 FCA 146.
• 4432002 Canada Inc. v. The Queen, 2022 TCC 101. Subsection 248(28) recognizes that two provisions can apply to one transaction and is intended to avoid double counting unless the Act clearly compels it (para. 13).
• Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. The Queen, 2021 TCC 71. A reading of subsection 39(2) that produces double counting remediable only by subsection 248(28), or its predecessor subsection 4(4), is disfavoured (paras. 79, 82, 87, and 152). Affirmed 2023 FCA 91 without reference to the point.
• Nonis v. The Queen, 2021 TCC 31. Paragraph 4(1)(b) provides a formula for a non-resident’s liability: Canadian income is the amount earned while physically working in Canada; salary continuation for duties outside Canada is not taxable, whoever pays it (paras. 59 and 68).
• Société Générale Valeurs Mobilières Inc. v. Canada, 2017 FCA 3. Affirms that the proper test for the amounts to be deducted from gross Brazilian-source interest under a tax-sparing article is subsection 4(1); the treaty credit is measured by Canadian tax on net income (paras. 8, 10, and 12).
• Société Générale Valeurs Mobilières Inc. v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 131. History of the source rules from Interprovincial Pipe Line (1959 and 1968) through subsections 139(1a) and (1b) to section 4; “income tax” under a convention imports Part I computation rules including section 4; the subsection 4(1) test applies and is a question of fact (paras. 43–54 and 87–93).
• Heaps v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 130. Interest on money borrowed and traced exclusively to the subdividable part of a property is wholly deductible; Tsiantoulas distinguished as a single-asset apportionment case under paragraph 4(1)(a) (paras. 13–17).
• Anstead v. Canada, 2005 FCA 315. Subsection 248(28) does not create a deduction the taxpayer does not otherwise have; “such income” refers to the same taxpayer’s income (paras. 9–10). Affirms 2004 TCC 201.
• Maya Forestales S.A. v. The Queen, 2005 TCC 66. A non-resident deemed by paragraph 253(b) to carry on business in Canada: paragraph 4(1)(b) requires a reasonable allocation of income to Canada for subparagraph 115(1)(a)(ii) (para. 32).
• Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Canada, 2004 FCA 361. Purpose of subsection 248(28) and former subsection 4(4): to avoid counting a transaction twice where it falls literally within two provisions, unless the Act clearly compels that result (paras. 67–69). Reversed on the paragraph 20(1)(f) issue, 2006 SCC 46, which did not discuss the subsection.
• Holder v. Canada, 2004 FCA 188. Former subsection 4(4) quoted in full; two adjusted cost base reductions from one election barred; different statutory objectives do not by themselves show a contrary intention (paras. 7 and 11–12). Reverses the Tax Court (24 July 2002), which had found a contrary intention in subsection 53(2) (para. 15).
• Kinguk Trawl Inc. v. The Queen (TCC, 22 January 2002). Paragraph 4(1)(b) invoked by both sides on the allocation of interest to a business said to be carried on in Denmark; the Court decided the case on where the business was carried on without construing the paragraph (paras. 127, 159, 179, and 205–213).
• Lukasewych v. The Queen (TCC, 23 May 2001). Expenses not shown to relate to the taxpayer’s only source fail the “wholly or reasonably applicable” test in paragraph 4(1)(a) (paras. 10–13).
• Canada v. Byram (FCA, 25 January 1999). Sections 3 and 4 establish that income is determined source by source; a deduction cannot be so far removed from its income stream that the connection is tenuous (para. 21).
• Cargill Ltd. v. Canada (FCA, 28 January 1998). Argument that paragraph 4(1)(b) required a separate inventory allowance at each place of business rejected as a reliance on provisions not in issue (paras. 17 and 19; the 1972 wording of the paragraph at note 11).
• Midwest Hotel Co. v. M.N.R., [1974] S.C.R. 1119. Pigeon J., dissenting, on subsections 139(1a) and (1b) “enacted in 1960”: they apply “when income from a specific source is to be separately ascertained or dealt with”, the general rule remaining that tax is levied on income from all sources after proper deductions (p. 1126). The majority did not discuss the provisions.
• Cited through verified judgments only, not read in the original: Interprovincial Pipe Line Co. v. M.N.R., [1959] S.C.R. 763, and [1968] S.C.R. 498 (as described in Société Générale, 2016 TCC 131, paras. 43–49); Tsiantoulas v. Canada, [1994] T.C.J. No. 984, para. 11 (as quoted in Heaps, para. 15); M.N.R. v. Wahn, [1969] S.C.R. 404 (Midwest Hotel, p. 1126); St-Hilaire v. R., [1997] 3 C.T.C. 2711, and Carroll v. M.N.R., 84 D.T.C. 1614, on subsection 4(4) and RRSP withdrawals (as quoted in Field v. The Queen (TCC, 16 March 2001), para. 9).
• Context only, section 4 not named: Canada v. Last, 2014 FCA 129, paras. 23 and 40 (the rule against increasing an assessment on appeal is applied to each source); Canada v. Green, 2017 FCA 107, para. 5 (partnerships allocate income source by source under section 96).

← Policy purpose and commentaryCRA documents →

CRA documents

• Income Tax Folio S5-F2-C1, Foreign Tax Credit, effective 31 March 2026, which on first publication (28 March 2013) replaced and cancelled IT-270R3, IT-395R2, and IT-520. This is the principal CRA statement on section 4. Sections 3 and 4 “reflect, among other things, that a business is a source of income”, located where it is carried on (para. 1.48); treaty sourcing rules are confined to the treaty (paras. 1.49 and 1.52); the location of business, employment, property, and capital gain sources (paras. 1.53–1.65); income from foreign sources “is computed under the rules given in sections 3 and 4” (para. 1.83); section 4 applies to the calculation of net income from a source or place for the credit, and every Part I deduction is “theoretically, allocable in whole or in part” (para. 1.84); subsection 4(3) and its exceptions, with deductions not excepted to be “allocated on a reasonable basis among all sources” (para. 1.85); financial-statement allocations accepted if consistent (para. 1.86); interest by tracing, net assets, or gross income (para. 1.87); capital cost allowance may be “arbitrarily allocated” within the Part XI limits (para. 1.88); net capital loss carryovers do not reduce foreign income (para. 1.90). The folio does not mention subsection 4(2) or subsection 126(9) beyond a definition.
• Archived IT-420R3, Non-Residents – Income Earned in Canada (30 March 1992) and IT-420R3SR (20 February 1995), archived but still cited by Folio S5-F2-C1. “By virtue of the rules in section 4”, a non-resident whose duties are performed partly in Canada allocates the income, usually per diem, and for transport workers by time or kilometres, with expenses allocated consistently (para. 7); a business carried on partly in Canada is allocated by the operations carried on in Canada (para. 10); Subdivision E deductions are available to non-residents unless they require residence or relate to Part XIII income (paras. 22–29). The Special Release states that, for taxation years ending after 12 November 1981, subsection 4(3) “applies to all sources of income, whether or not the source of income relates to more than one place”, lists the unallocated deductions as paragraphs 60(b) to (o), (p), (r), and (v) to (w), and describes the trust limb (items 3 and 4). Pre-1994 law; read as historical practice.
• Archived IT-201R2, Foreign Tax Credit – Trust and Beneficiaries (12 February 1996). Does not cite section 4, but explains the 1994 rewrite of subsection 104(22) into five subsections requiring designations “on a source-by-source basis”, the corresponding reduction of the trust’s foreign income under subsection 104(22.2), and the confinement of the rules to section 126 (paras. 1, 6, and 9, and Explanation of Changes).
• Archived IT-506, Foreign Income Taxes as a Deduction From Income (5 January 1987). Does not cite section 4; a subsection 20(12) deduction requires an equivalent reduction of the foreign income used in the credit computation (para. 8), which the folio attributes to the operation of subsections 20(11) and (12) “in conjunction with subsection 4(3)” (S5-F2-C1, para. 1.81).
• Archived IT-206R, Separate Businesses, cited in Folio S5-F2-C1, para. 1.55, on whether a taxpayer has one business or several, that is, one source or several.
• IT-270R3, Foreign Tax Credit, and IT-171R2, Non-Resident Individuals – Computation of Taxable Income Earned in Canada, are cancelled (28 March 2013 and 30 September 2012) and no copy is available on canada.ca; IT-420R3, para. 10, refers readers to IT-270 for “the determination of a territorial source of income”.
• Income Tax Audit Manual, chapter 17.2.8 (modified 1 September 2026), reproducing internal interpretation 9238787: “the word income does not normally include the word loss, unless a contrary intention is evident. This is evidenced, for example, by the wording of sections 3 and 4 and subsection 9(2)”. Chapter 11.3.4 refers auditors to Folio S5-F2-C1 for foreign tax credits and requires a country-by-country breakdown on the T7W-C. No chapter addresses the allocation of expenses among sources.
• Line 40500 – Federal foreign tax credit (modified 14 August 2026): the credit is the lesser, “for each foreign country”, of the foreign tax paid and “the tax otherwise payable in Canada on your net income from that country”. The page refers to line 12 of Form T2209 where the 2025 form uses line 13.
• Guide T4058, Non-Residents and Income Tax and Guide 5013-G: a non-resident reports employment income “for employment duties that you performed in Canada” and income “from a business carried on in Canada”; neither guide mentions section 4 or the allocation of deductions.

← Relevant case lawRegulations, forms, and elections →

Regulations, forms, and elections

• No provision of the Income Tax Regulations, C.R.C., c. 945 (current to 21 September 2026), refers to section 4, and section 4 confers no regulation-making power. Part XXVI (ss. 2600–2603), made under the definition “income earned in the year in a province” in subsection 120(4), performs a parallel but formulaic place attribution for individuals: residual income to the province of residence (s. 2601(1)–(2)), business income to the permanent establishment (s. 2603), and a non-resident’s employment income to the province where the duties were performed (s. 2602(1)(a), whose English text omits the word “in” before “the province”). Part IV (ss. 400–402) does the same for corporations.
• Form T2209, Federal Foreign Tax Credits (2025) is the only CRA form found that names the subsection. Net foreign non-business income is computed country by country, and the taxpayer must subtract “a deduction you claimed under subsections 20(11) or 20(12) and under subsection 4(3) of the ITA relating to the foreign income, including any deduction claimed for: your foreign union dues; your contributions to a foreign pension plan or a social security arrangement; your foreign carrying charges” (note 2). Corporations use T2 Schedule 21 and trusts Form T3FFT (Folio S5-F2-C1, para. 1.78).
• Form T2036, Provincial or Territorial Foreign Tax Credit (2025) takes net foreign non-business income from line 2 of Form T2209 and, for multiple-jurisdiction filers, the provincial allocation from column 4 of Part 1 of Form T2203.
• Form T2203, Provincial and Territorial Taxes for Multiple Jurisdictions (2025), Part 1, allocates business income by permanent establishment “for more information, see Part XXVI of the Income Tax Regulations” and a non-resident’s office or employment income “to the province or territory where the duties were performed”.
• The T3 slip carries a trust’s subsection 104(22) designations in boxes 24 and 25 (foreign business and non-business income) and 33 and 34 (foreign taxes), per Guide T4013; the CRA does not at present require a country breakdown on the slip but may request it.
• Section 4 contains no election. The designation under subsection 104(22) is made in the trust’s return for the year (paragraph 104(22)(a)(i)).

← CRA documentsCompliance →

Compliance

• Keep the books by source and by place. Because income or loss is computed under paragraph 4(1)(a) as if each source were the only one, records must permit the revenue and the expenses of each office, employment, business, and property to be identified separately, and, where a business is carried on or duties are performed in more than one place, by place. An expense that cannot be shown to relate to a source is not deductible against it (Lukasewych, para. 13).
• Allocate shared expenses on a reasonable and consistent basis. Deductions that serve more than one source are apportioned; the CRA accepts a financial-statement allocation “provided that the rules of subsection 4(3) … are satisfied” and expects consistency from year to year (Folio S5-F2-C1, para. 1.86); for interest, tracing is preferred, net assets next, and gross income only where nothing less arbitrary is available (para. 1.87); capital cost allowance may be allocated by country within the Part XI limits (para. 1.88).
• Non-residents: report only the Canadian-place income, and allocate expenses to it. Employment income is apportioned to duties performed in Canada, usually by working days (IT-420R3, para. 7; Folio S5-F2-C1, para. 1.57); business income to the operations carried on in Canada (IT-420R3, para. 10; Maya Forestales, para. 32); and the deductions in paragraphs 60(b) to (o), (p), (r), and (v) to (z) are claimed in full against all section 115 income rather than allocated (IT-420R3SR, item 3). Where pay is partly directed to an RCA or other excluded arrangement, isolate the Canadian-duty compensation first (Canada v. Martin, para. 44).
• Residents claiming a foreign tax credit: compute foreign income net, country by country. Foreign non-business and business income are the net amounts after the deductions wholly or reasonably applicable to the foreign source, including subsection 20(11) and (12) deductions and the subsection 4(3) items listed on Form T2209 (note 2; Folio S5-F2-C1, paras. 1.80–1.85 and 1.91). A separate computation is required for each country (subsection 126(6)(b)). Loss carryovers under section 111 do not reduce the foreign income figure (para. 1.90).
• Trusts: designate foreign income source by source. A subsection 104(22) designation is made per foreign source in the trust’s return, cannot exceed the trust’s income from that source (paragraph 104(22)(d)), and requires the trust to reduce its own foreign income and foreign tax under subsections 104(22.2) and (22.3); subsection 104(6) and (12) deductions are not applied to foreign sources (paragraph 4(3)(b)).
• Do not count an amount twice. Subsection 248(28) bars a second inclusion or deduction of an amount already included or deducted, directly or indirectly, in the year or a preceding year; it does not create a deduction (Anstead, para. 9), and it does not permit re-deduction in a later year of an amount deducted in a statute-barred year (Explanatory Notes, December 1995).

← Regulations, forms, and electionsPlanning and dispute notes →

Planning and dispute notes

• Apportionment cases turn on evidence, not formulae. Whether a deduction is wholly or partly applicable to a source is a question of fact (Société Générale, 2016 TCC 131, para. 89). A taxpayer who wants interest wholly deductible against a business source should be able to trace the borrowed money to the business asset (Heaps, paras. 13–17); a taxpayer who wants foreign-source income kept high for the credit should document why general expenses relate to Canadian activity.
• Non-resident employees and athletes. The sequence fixed by Canada v. Martin (paras. 43–44) and Nonis (paras. 59 and 68) favours the taxpayer: the Canadian-duty compensation is isolated first, and only then are inclusions and exclusions applied; remuneration for duties performed outside Canada is not taxable “no matter who pays it”. Assessments that apply a Canadian-day percentage to total remuneration, or that prorate salary continuation by a historical average, have not survived appeal. Treaty relief under the dependent personal services article is a separate question.
• Foreign tax credit disputes. The credit is capped by Canadian tax on net foreign-source income computed under sections 3 and 4 with subsection 4(3) (Folio S5-F2-C1, paras. 1.83–1.85). The allocation of interest and overhead to foreign sources is the usual point of contention; Société Générale establishes that the treaty credit, like the domestic credit, is measured on net income under the subsection 4(1) test, and the Interprovincial Pipe Line history shows that general borrowing costs may be allocated to foreign interest income. Treaty re-sourcing rules, such as Article XXIV(3) of the Canada–United States Convention, can move income into the foreign-source figure for the treaty credit only (paras. 1.49, 1.52, and 1.64).
• Provincial allocation is a different exercise. For an individual, “income earned in the year in a province” is determined by the Part XXVI formula, not by a section 4 allocation of deductions, and an individual resident in Ontario with a permanent establishment elsewhere prorates provincial tax by the Ontario allocation factor (Taxation Act, 2007, ss. 3(1) and 6(2)). Arguments that transpose section 4 reasoning into the Regulations have no textual footing.
• The double-counting presumption is a shield, not a sword. Subsection 248(28) may defeat an assessment that taxes the same amount twice in the same taxpayer’s hands (Holder), and it supports an interpretation that avoids double counting (CIBC, 2021 TCC 71), but it cannot be used to claim a deduction not otherwise available (Anstead) or to shelter recurring receipts on the ground that their value was once taxed as a capital gain (Louis Sheff (1984) Inc. v. The Queen, 2003 TCC 589, para. 64).
• Paragraph 4(1)(b) cannot fragment a whole-business computation. Where another provision computes an amount for the business as a whole, such as the former inventory allowance, paragraph 4(1)(b) does not require a place-by-place computation (Cargill, paras. 17 and 19).

← ComplianceProvincial and treaty parallels →

Provincial and treaty parallels

• Ontario. The Taxation Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 11, Sch. A, has no counterpart of section 4. It takes “income” from the federal Act (s. 1(1)), defines “income earned in Ontario” by the rules under subsection 120(4) of the federal Act, that is, Part XXVI of the Regulations (s. 3(1)), adopts Regulation 2600(2) for an individual’s permanent establishment (s. 1(1)), prorates the tax of an individual with income earned outside Ontario by the “Ontario allocation factor” (ss. 4(1) and 6(2)), and computes the Ontario foreign tax credit from the federal subparagraph 126(1)(b)(i) amount (s. 21(2)).
• Quebec. The Taxation Act, CQLR c. I-3, s. 29, is the counterpart of the whole of section 4 in three paragraphs. The first: “Where income or loss is from an office, employment, business, property or other source in Canada or in another place, or where income or loss is from an office, employment or business performed or carried on partly in Canada and partly in another place, the taxpayer shall compute separately the income or loss from each source according to the place and shall only apply to it such part of the deductions provided by this Part as may reasonably be applied to such source according to the place.” The second excludes the deductions in sections 334 to 358.0.4 (the Quebec Subdivision E) as subsection 4(2) does; the third, for Part II and sections 671, 671.1, and 772.2 to 772.13 (the trust designation and foreign tax credit rules), makes deductions applicable separately to each place with exceptions drawn from sections 336 to 341, and keeps the trust deductions in section 657 away from foreign sources. The Quebec text has no “as if the taxpayer had no other income” assumption. Section 30, possibly the counterpart of former subsection 4(4), is repealed. Section 1 defines “business”, “employment”, “office”, and “property” but not “source” or “place”.
• Alberta and British Columbia. The Alberta Personal Income Tax Act, RSA 2000, c. A-30, s. 1(1)(c), (d), and (o) and s. 47(1), and the Income Tax Act, RSBC 1996, c. 215, s. 4(1), define business income in and outside the province and “income earned in the taxation year” in the province by Regulations 2600 and 2603; British Columbia’s foreign tax credit in s. 4.71 restates the federal per-country “sources in the other country” formula.
• Canada–United States Convention. Article VII(1) taxes business profits in the other State only to the extent “attributable to” a permanent establishment there; Article VII(3) allows “as deductions expenses which are incurred for the purposes of the permanent establishment, including executive and general administrative expenses so incurred, whether in the State in which the permanent establishment is situated or elsewhere”, and Article VII(5) requires the same method year by year. Article XXIV(3) deems profits, income, or gains that the other State may tax under the Convention “to arise in that other State” for the purposes of the credit; none of the 1983, 1995, or 2007 Protocols amended Article VII(3) or XXIV(3). The Canada Revenue Agency treats these as re-sourcing rules confined to the treaty (Folio S5-F2-C1, paras. 1.52, 1.64, and 1.82).
• Canada–United Kingdom Convention. Article 21(3) deems income, profits, and gains taxed in the other State under the Convention “to arise from sources in that other Contracting State” for the credit, and is the example the folio gives of treaty re-sourcing (para. 1.49). The 2014 Protocol replaced Article 7 with a text attributing to a permanent establishment the profits “it might be expected to make … if it were a separate and independent enterprise”, without an express expense-deduction paragraph; the in-force date of that Protocol was not checked.
• Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-4. Section 4 declares that profits “attributable or allocable to a permanent establishment in Canada” are determined by including the amounts, and denying the deductions, that the Income Tax Act would apply to a resident “in the computation of his income from a business”, the treaty-side counterpart of paragraph 4(1)(b); section 3 gives undefined treaty terms their meaning under the Act; section 5 extends “Canada” to the continental shelf; and section 6.3 deems income, gain, or loss from taxable Canadian property to arise in Canada.

← Planning and dispute notesAnnotated cross-references →

Annotated cross-references

• Section 3: the aggregation of the per-source amounts that section 4 defines; paragraph 3(c) is where the Subdivision E deductions excluded by subsection 4(2) are taken.
• Section 9: income from a business or property is the profit from it, and the loss is computed by the same rules; the computation that paragraph 4(1)(a) isolates for each business or property.
• Section 60 to section 64: the Subdivision E deductions that subsection 4(2) removes from the source computation, and the paragraphs of section 60 that subsection 4(3) keeps unallocated.
• Section 96: a partnership’s income is computed as if it were a separate person and allocated to the partners source by source (Green, para. 5).
• Section 104: subsections (22) to (22.4), the source-by-source designation of a trust’s foreign income and foreign tax to beneficiaries, and subsections (6) and (12), the trust deductions that paragraph 4(3)(b) keeps away from foreign sources.
• Section 111: the non-capital loss in subsection 111(8) begins with the taxpayer’s loss “from an office, employment, business or property”, a per-source figure under paragraph 4(1)(a).
• Section 115: a non-resident’s taxable income earned in Canada, computed from the place-based sources that paragraph 4(1)(b) isolates, with deductions allocated under subsection 4(3).
• Section 120: subsection 120(4), “income earned in the year in a province”, and Part XXVI of the Regulations, the formulaic provincial place attribution that runs alongside section 4.
• Section 126: the foreign tax credit, capped by Canadian tax on income “from sources in that country” computed under sections 3 and 4 with subsection 4(3), and subsection 126(9), the further adjustments to qualifying incomes and losses.
• Section 149: subsection 149(4), the “no income or loss from any other sources” computation for fraternal benefit societies, construed by analogy with section 4 in Independent Order of Foresters.
• Section 248: subsection 248(28), the successor of former subsection 4(4), and the definitions of “amount”, “business”, “employment”, “office”, “property”, and “taxpayer”.
• Section 249: “taxation year”.
• Section 253: extended meaning of carrying on business in Canada, which brings a non-resident within paragraph 4(1)(b) and section 115 (Maya Forestales).

← Provincial and treaty parallelsSources →

Sources

• Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), s. 4: Justice Laws Website (Act current to 21 September 2026, last amended 18 June 2026), the French text, the point-in-time versions of 31 August 2004, 14 December 2007, and 26 June 2013, the amendments not in force, and sections 9, 60 to 64.1, 104, 111, 115, 126, 248, and 249.
• Income Tax Regulations, C.R.C., c. 945, ss. 2600–2603; Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, ss. 15, 33, 35, 37, and 38; Income Tax Application Rules, R.S.C. 1985, c. 2 (5th Supp.), ss. 9, 20, 29, and 73; Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-4, ss. 3, 4, 5, 5.1, and 6.3; Canada–United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, S.C. 1984, c. 20, Schedules I–VI.
• Historical texts: Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, 5th Supplement (s. 4 with its source note); Library of Parliament, Canadian Parliamentary Historical Resources: Bill 338 (1948), clause 127(1)(av) and cross-reference column (House of Commons Bills, 20th Parl., 4th Sess., seq. 940–941); Bill C-68 (1960), clause 33 and explanatory notes (24th Parl., 3rd Sess., seq. 459–503), the Votes and Proceedings of 1960 recording its passage and royal assent, and Bill C-73 (1960-61), margin citing “1960, c. 43”; Bill C-259 (1971), s. 4 and explanatory notes (28th Parl., 3rd Sess., vol. 1, seq. 14–17); Bill C-18 (1991), clause 2; Bill C-15 (1994), Sch. II, s. 2. Parliament of Canada royal assent texts: S.C. 1994, c. 21, S.C. 1996, c. 21, S.C. 2007, c. 35, and S.C. 2013, c. 34.
• Department of Finance: Explanatory Notes to Legislation Relating to Income Tax (May 1991), clause 2; Amendments to the Income Tax Act and Related Statutes: Draft Legislation and Explanatory Notes (August 1993), clause 1; Amendments to the Income Tax Act: Explanatory Notes (December 1995), clause 2 and subclause 60(3); Explanatory Notes to Legislative Proposals Relating to Income Tax (November 2006), clause 47; Legislative Proposals Relating to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations (Technical Amendments) (23 July 2026) and Draft Legislative Proposals (15 September 2026), both read through a summarizing fetch; the Canada–United States and Canada–United Kingdom consolidations and the UK 2003 and 2014 Protocols.
• Royal Commission on Taxation, Report (1966), vol. 3, pp. 64, 70, and 101, and vol. 4, pp. 502 and 505 (page numbers from the OCR text); Proposals for Tax Reform (1969), paras. 6.23 and 6.25; Summary of 1971 Tax Reform Legislation.
• Supreme Court of Canada: Midwest Hotel, Imperial Oil (2006), Stewart.
• Federal Court of Appeal: Independent Order of Foresters, Martin, CIBC, Société Générale, Green, Last, Anstead, Imperial Oil (2004), Holder, Manrell, Byram, Cargill.
• Tax Court of Canada: Martin, Bykov, Independent Order of Foresters, 4432002 Canada, CIBC, Nonis, Société Générale, Tremblay, Heaps, Anstead, Maya Forestales, Louis Sheff, Kinguk Trawl, Holder, Lukasewych, Field.
• Canada Revenue Agency: Folio S5-F2-C1, IT-420R3 and IT-420R3SR, IT-201R2, IT-506, IT-206R, the IT bulletin–folio table of concordance, the list of cancelled interpretation bulletins, the Income Tax Audit Manual (chapters 11, 12, 15, and 17), Forms T2209, T2036, and T2203 (2025), Guides T4013, T4058, 5000-G, and 5013-G, and the line 40500 and 42800 pages, all read 28–29 September 2026.
• Ontario: Taxation Act, 2007 (e-Laws, consolidated from 1 July 2026). Quebec: Taxation Act, CQLR c. I-3 (LégisQuébec, up to date to 10 June 2026). Alberta: Alberta Personal Income Tax Act (current to 11 December 2025). British Columbia: Income Tax Act (current to 22 September 2026).
• Canadian Tax Foundation items under “Policy purpose and commentary”: catalogue entries only; the site refused automated access.

← Annotated cross-references