In Payette v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 348, the taxpayer, a retired accountant, was attempting to develop a novel propulsion system for interstellar exploration. He claimed business expenses and SRED tax credits for his efforts. The Minister was skeptical, perhaps because ‘Mr. Payette was able to prove the concept worked “to my satisfaction but not to anyone else’s”‘. Indeed, the Canadian Space Agency found the following, according to the Court:
[16] Apparently, the CSA had a program to sponsor innovative technology and Mr. Payette made a request for a proposal with CSA’s Space Technology Development Program – Innovative Technologies. The CSA did award contracts to ten successful builders under the Innovative Technologies Program, but not to Mr. Payette or Spacecraft. Indeed, Mr. Payette’s application did not receive the minimum score requirement for technical criteria, management criteria and overall score in CSA’s evaluation process.
[17] In its evaluation summary of Mr. Payette’s application with respect to technical criteria, the CSA found, for example, that his engineering concepts and principles were incorrect in describing the proposed technology, that the proposal did not demonstrate an understanding of the technology or the skills needed to apply the basic engineering concepts and principles and that while the proposed methodology would likely resolve the challenges, the technology is fundamentally flawed and cannot be successfully developed. Building a hovercraft to prove the concept is not cost effective nor is it practical according to the CSA evaluation.
Case dismissed.
