Two businesses agree to help each other. A designer builds a website; an accountant does the year end. No invoice changes hands because no money does. Both sides consider the matter closed and neither records anything, which is the point at which it becomes a tax problem.
Key Takeaway
CRA states that there are no specific provisions in the Income Tax Act which deal with barter transactions, and takes the view that they fall within sections 3 and 9. IT-490 describes the fundamental principle that each party considers the value received to be at least equal to the value given up. Commentary reports CRA treating a barter as two supplies, one from each party, so each side has its own GST/HST obligation. Two consequences follow that businesses rarely anticipate: the income is recognised whether or not the thing received is deductible, and the tax is payable in cash on a transaction that produced none.
A Note On Currency
Everything here is stated as verified in August 2026 and requires confirmation before reliance.
Our best source is a CRA technical interpretation from 4 November 2008, accessed through a secondary reproduction[1]. CRA states in it that its comments are of a general nature only and are not binding on the CRA[1].
We did not obtain Interpretation Bulletin IT-490, Barter Transactions itself. We quote it only as CRA quotes it in that interpretation, and note that interpretation bulletins of that vintage may have been archived or superseded.
Several of our other sources are publications of barter exchange operators, which have a commercial interest in the subject[2][3][4]. We flag them where used.
One point is drawn from an online forum post, which we identify as such and treat as illustrative rather than authoritative[8].
This is not tax advice. Whether a particular exchange gives rise to income depends on the facts and on whether it occurs in the course of a business.
There Is No Provision For This
The structural starting point, and it explains much of the difficulty.
CRA states that there are no specific provisions in the Income Tax Act which deal with barter transactions, and that it takes the view that barter transactions are within the purview of sections 3 and 9 of the Act[1].
Another source makes the parallel point across both statutes, stating that the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act do not specifically define barter transactions[3].
Three consequences, ours.
The treatment is derived rather than prescribed. Sections 3 and 9 are the general provisions computing income and income from a business. Barter is handled by reasoning from first principles about what income is.
Which means the answer is less mechanical than most tax questions in this series. There is no threshold, no election, no form.
And it explains why the guidance rests on an interpretation bulletin rather than legislation. IT-490 is an administrative statement of how CRA reasons, not a rule, and CRA's own interpretation describes its comments as not binding[1].
The practical implication is that a business cannot look up whether its arrangement is caught. It has to ask whether what it did produced income in the ordinary sense, which is a harder and more general question.
What Counts As Barter
The description CRA works from.
Paragraph 3 of IT-490, as CRA quotes it, describes the principle as one where two persons agree to a reciprocal exchange of goods or services and carry out that exchange usually without using money[1].
Commentary reports the same, describing CRA's view of a barter as occurring when two parties agree to a reciprocal exchange of goods or services and carry out that exchange without using money[5].
Two features worth drawing out, ours.
The word usually in the bulletin's formulation is doing quiet work. An exchange that is mostly in kind with some cash is still described within the concept, which matters for the part-cash arrangements discussed below.
And the definition covers services for services, not only goods for goods. That is the form most small businesses actually use and the one least likely to generate any paperwork.
Commentary states the underlying point in a sentence worth keeping: trading your product or service for something else does not avoid tax; it simply means the payment was in-kind rather than in cash[5].
The Equal Value Principle
The reasoning that lets CRA put a number on a transaction with no price.
IT-490, as quoted by CRA, states that in a barter transaction between two persons dealing at arm's length, it is a fundamental principle that each of those persons considers that the value of whatever is received is at least equal to the value of whatever is given up in exchange therefor[1].
That is an elegant piece of reasoning, and this is our own reading of it.
A barter has no stated price, so there is nothing to tax directly. The bulletin solves that by observing that a rational person dealing at arm's length would not agree to the exchange unless what they got was worth at least what they gave.
So the value of one side can be established by reference to the other, and both are anchored to whichever is easier to measure.
Two consequences.
The principle is expressly limited to arm's length dealings. Between related parties the assumption that each side got equal value does not hold, and the analysis is different in a way we did not research.
And it means that a documented price on either side settles both. Where one party issues an invoice at a stated amount, that amount is strong evidence of the value of both legs, which is why the invoicing advice below matters so much.
A Figure That Looks Wrong
A point of caution about our own principal source.
CRA's interpretation sets out a hypothetical: a lawyer invoiced his client $150 for legal services. The lawyer and his client are members of the same barter exchange network. The invoice was paid through the barter exchange network by accepting a $15 credit in barter units on account[1].
CRA then reasons that this is consistent with the underlying principle that the value of whatever is received, being the barter units, is at least equal to the value of whatever is given up in exchange, being revenue of $150 from the invoice[1].
Those two passages do not sit together, and this is our own observation.
A $15 credit is not at least equal to $150 of legal services. The reasoning quoted only works if the credit accepted was $150, and the conclusion CRA reaches treats it as such.
We think the most likely explanation is a typographical error, either in the original severed letter or in the reproduction through which we accessed it. We did not obtain the original to confirm.
We report it rather than quietly correcting it, for two reasons. A reader who goes to the source should not be surprised by it. And it is a useful reminder that severed letters and their reproductions are working documents rather than polished publications, which is worth knowing before relying on one.
The principle CRA states is unaffected by the discrepancy, and it is the principle we rely on.
Which Side Do You Value
A divergence among the sources, reported rather than resolved.
One source states CRA's view as being that giving up a good or providing a service should be treated as though you had received a payment for it, and that the payment is the fair market value of the good or service you have provided to the other party[2].
Another states that the requirement is to report the fair market value of the goods or services received as income[6].
A third, discussing the cryptocurrency case, states that the seller must remit GST/HST based on the fair market value received and should not report based on the fair market value of the goods or services sold[7].
Those are three different instructions, and this is our own analysis of why the difference usually does not matter and occasionally does.
Under the equal value principle the two sides are the same number at arm's length, so in ordinary cases the choice of measuring stick is immaterial.
It matters where one side is much easier to value than the other, which is the practical reason for the divergence: each source is reaching for whichever figure is observable.
And it matters where the two sides are genuinely not equal, which is where a business should stop and take advice rather than pick the answer it prefers.
We did not resolve which formulation is correct as a matter of law, and a business with a material barter should not rely on our description of the difference.
One Exchange, Two Supplies
The sales tax structure, which is the point most often missed.
Commentary states that CRA explicitly states that a barter transaction is essentially two supplies, one from each party, meaning that each side of the trade has to consider GST/HST and, in Quebec, QST on their supply[5].
Another puts the expectation plainly: CRA expects participants to collect and remit GST/HST if applicable, just as with any cash transaction[3].
Three consequences, ours.
A single handshake creates two taxable events, not one. Each party is a supplier in respect of what they provided and a recipient in respect of what they got.
Each party therefore has its own obligation to charge and remit, measured on the value of its own supply, and neither can rely on the other having dealt with it.
And because there is no payment, nothing prompts the tax to be charged. In a cash sale the invoice is what triggers the tax line. In a barter there is frequently no invoice at all.
One source captures the practical failure precisely in a related context on this site's own analysis of dealership trades: barter arrangements frequently produce no invoices, which leaves both parties without support for a credit and one of them having under-collected. The same failure mode applies generally.
Whether The Tax Nets Out
The condition on which the sales tax is a wash or a cost. This section is our own analysis.
Where both parties are registrants, each charges tax on its supply and each claims an input tax credit on what it received, and to the extent the acquisition is for use in commercial activity, the tax nets out. The exchange costs neither of them anything in sales tax.
That is the situation businesses assume they are in, and it is why the failure to invoice feels harmless.
It stops being harmless in three cases.
Where one party is not registered, including a small supplier, that party charges nothing on its supply but also recovers nothing on what it receives. The registered party's tax is a real cost to the unregistered one.
Where the thing received is not for use in commercial activity, no credit is available, and the tax charged on it is an expense.
And where neither party invoiced, both may have failed to collect while neither has documentation to support a credit, which is the worst of the available outcomes: exposure on one side and no relief on the other.
Commentary's advice on this is sound and simple: agree on the value of the trade to claim on both sides, so the tax implications are equal for both parties, and issue receipts to one another[2].
The Deduction Is Not Automatic
The first asymmetry, and the one that turns an even trade into a taxable event. This section is our own analysis.
The two legs of a barter are governed by different tests.
The income leg arises because you gave up goods or services in the course of a business. That is a question about your own activity.
The deduction leg arises only if what you received is deductible, which is a question about the nature of the thing received.
Those are not the same question, and they can produce different answers on the two halves of a single exchange.
Commentary illustrates the point with an example: a print job that is not a normal business expense for the store owner, so he cannot claim the cost[4].
Another source states the deduction side conditionally, that if the goods or services provided in a barter transaction are business-related, their value can often be deducted as a business expense[6]. Note the conditional, and note the word often.
So the structure is: income whenever you supply in the course of business, deduction only when what you take is a business expense.
The cases where they diverge are ordinary rather than exotic. A business owner who trades professional services for dental work, a holiday, home renovations, tutoring or a vehicle for personal use has taken value out of the business in a form that is not deductible.
What The Asymmetry Costs
The magnitude, computed by us at an assumed 43.35 percent rate on a $10,000 exchange.
Design work traded for office printing produces $10,000 of income and a $10,000 deduction. Net taxable nil, tax nil.
The same design work traded for dental care produces $10,000 of income and no deduction. Net taxable $10,000, tax roughly $4,335.
Traded for a family holiday, the same again: roughly $4,335.
Two observations, ours.
An exchange that both parties regard as perfectly even by value can generate a full tax charge on one side, because fairness between the parties has nothing to do with deductibility.
And the amount is payable in cash, which brings us to the second trap.
We note that the personal cases above may raise further questions we have not addressed, including whether taking business services for personal benefit engages other provisions where the business is incorporated. That is a real question and it points the same way rather than the other.
Tax Owed, No Cash Received
The second asymmetry, and the one most likely to cause actual damage. This section is our own analysis.
Tax is assessed on income. Income includes the value of what was received in a barter. But tax is paid in money, and a barter produces none.
So a business that barters is accruing a cash liability against non-cash revenue.
In a single small trade that is trivial. It scales badly, for a reason worth stating.
A business short of cash is exactly the business most tempted to barter. Trading services for something it needs looks like a way to obtain the thing without spending money it does not have.
The tax consequence runs the other way. The trade increases the tax bill without increasing the cash available to pay it, so the arrangement that felt like relief has tightened the position.
That is the structural trap in barter, and it is invisible at the moment of the deal because nothing is written down and no money moves.
The Cash Required
The size of it, computed by us.
Take a business billing $90,000 in cash and $40,000 in barter over a year.
Income tax is computed on $130,000, not on the $90,000 that arrived.
At an assumed 20 percent rate the barter half adds roughly $8,000 of tax. At 30 percent, roughly $12,000. At 43.35 percent, roughly $17,340. All of it payable in cash.
Then the sales tax. Because each side makes a supply, the barter is also a taxable sale. At 13 percent that is $5,200 to collect and remit on the $40,000, recoverable by the other side as an input tax credit only if they are registered.
Taking the middle income tax assumption, the cash required against a transaction that produced no cash is roughly $17,200, being about 43 percent of the face value of the trade.
Two cautions, ours. The rates are assumed and the sales tax should normally be collected from the counterparty rather than absorbed, which is precisely what fails to happen when no invoice is issued.
The structural point survives both. Barter converts revenue into a form that cannot pay the tax it generates, and the proportion is large enough that a business trading heavily needs to plan for it deliberately.
Barter Counts Toward The Threshold
A third consequence, smaller but capable of surprising a small operator.
Commentary notes that a supplier with less than $30,000 in total supplies over four consecutive calendar quarters is a small supplier and is exempt from registering and collecting GST/HST[7].
Since a barter is a supply, its value forms part of that total, and this is our own inference from the two-supply principle.
On our own figures: a business with $24,000 of cash sales and $8,000 of barter has total supplies of $32,000, which is over the threshold. The same business with $26,000 cash and $3,000 barter is at $29,000 and under it.
Two observations.
A business tracking its threshold by reference to money received will understate its position, potentially for years.
And the consequence of crossing unknowingly is uncollected tax on all subsequent supplies, which is the same failure mode this publication has described in several other sectors: the obligation begins on a date the business did not notice.
We flag that we did not verify the threshold or the four-quarter measurement independently and report them as the source states them.
Barter Networks And Trade Dollars
The organised form, which changes the mechanics but not the principle.
Commentary describes networks where businesses trade through a centralised system using a form of credit or trade dollars to facilitate exchanges, and states that CRA requires the fair market value of the goods or services received to be reported as income, with the value equivalent to the trade dollars or credits used in the transaction[6].
CRA's own interpretation concerns exactly this situation, an invoice paid through a barter exchange network by accepting a credit in barter units[1].
One operator describes an alternative model operating on direct barter exchanges without using any credits as a medium of exchange, which makes setting the value of each trade the more important step[2].
Three observations, ours.
A network improves the position in one respect: it produces records and stated values where an informal trade produces neither. CRA's own analysis treats the credit as measuring the value.
It does not change the tax outcome. The credits are consideration, and receiving them is receiving payment.
And it introduces a timing question we did not research. Credits earned in one period may be spent in another, and whether that separates the income from the deduction across years is a question a network participant should raise.
We note that two of our sources on this subject are network operators[2][3][4]. They are informative about mechanics and have an interest in the practice, and both those things are true at once.
Part Cash, Part Trade
The most common real-world shape, and the one where the error is easiest.
An online forum contribution makes the point that a registrant needs to charge tax on the full value of the sale, not just the cash portion, and correspondingly can claim credits on the acquisition side[8].
We identify that source as a forum post rather than professional guidance and do not rely on it alone. We include it because it states a proposition that follows from the two-supply principle above, and because it describes the error accurately.
Our own analysis of why this shape causes trouble.
When part of a transaction is paid in cash, an invoice usually does get issued, because there is a payment to account for.
The natural instinct is to invoice the cash, since that is the part that needs a record.
The result is a document that understates the supply, and it is worse than no document at all, because it looks like a complete record of the transaction and will be treated as one.
An auditor comparing a $4,000 invoice against goods worth $10,000 leaving the premises has a straightforward question, and the invoice is the evidence against the business rather than for it.
Two Authorities In Quebec
A jurisdictional point worth isolating.
Commentary notes that Revenu Quebec oversees the Quebec Sales Tax in addition to provincial income tax, that QST applies to barter transactions in much the same way as the federal GST/HST does, and that Quebec-based businesses must satisfy two tax authorities when bartering, being CRA for federal tax including GST and Revenu Quebec for provincial income tax and QST[5].
Two observations, ours.
The substantive treatment is described as parallel, so a Quebec business does not face a different concept, only a second administration of the same one.
But two authorities means two examinations and two sets of documentation expectations, and a barter that has generated no paperwork has generated none for either.
We did not research the Quebec position beyond this and a Quebec business should not treat our summary as sufficient.
The Paper Trail Problem
The characteristic that makes this an audit topic at all.
Commentary observes that unlike cash transactions, barter exchanges may not come with paper trails, making diligent record-keeping an indispensable tool for compliance[4].
Another notes that businesses should keep meticulous records to substantiate the value of goods and services exchanged, as CRA may request documentation during audits, and that the necessary records include invoices, agreements, or receipts that clearly outline the goods or services exchanged, along with their fair market value[3][4].
Our own observation is that this inverts the usual documentary position, in a way that matters.
In most areas covered in this series, the records exist and the question is whether they were interpreted correctly. Bank statements, invoices and payroll registers are generated as a by-product of doing business.
Barter generates nothing automatically. There is no deposit, no cheque, no card settlement and frequently no invoice. If nobody deliberately creates a record at the time, no record will exist.
Which means the compliance failure here is not usually an error of judgment. It is an absence, and absences are reconstructed years later against an auditor's assumptions rather than the business's memory.
Forms People Do Not Call Barter
Where this arises now, which is more often than the word suggests. This section is our own analysis and is offered as a prompt rather than a set of conclusions.
Products given in exchange for promotion, where a business supplies goods to someone who provides marketing services in return. Both sides have supplied something.
Reciprocal professional services between advisers, which is the classic case and almost never invoiced.
Space or facilities for services, such as a studio provided in return for maintenance or teaching.
Contra arrangements in advertising and media, where placement is exchanged for goods.
Sponsorship in kind, where a business supplies goods or services to an event in return for exposure.
Trade of goods between businesses in the same sector, which is common in trades and in collectibles retail.
The common feature is that none of these are described as barter by the people doing them. They are described as favours, partnerships, collaborations or sponsorships.
On the definition CRA works from, a reciprocal exchange of goods or services carried out without using money is what each of them is, and the label the parties use does not change the analysis.
What The Auditor Actually Examines
The enquiry in practice. This section is our own analysis.
Goods or services leaving the business without a corresponding sale, which is where inventory records and job records disagree with revenue.
Invoices that appear to understate a transaction, particularly part-cash arrangements.
Barter network statements, which record credits earned and spent and are the clearest evidence available.
Whether GST/HST was charged on the supply made, separately from whether a credit was claimed on the supply received.
The deductibility of what was received, tested independently of the income recognition.
The small supplier calculation, and whether barter supplies were included in it.
Related party exchanges, where the equal value principle does not apply.
The first item deserves emphasis. Barter is most often detected not from a document about the barter but from a gap, being goods or hours that left the business and produced no revenue, and gaps of that kind are what several of the audit techniques described elsewhere in this series are designed to find.
What Records Survive
An invoice for the supply you made, at full value with tax where applicable, issued even though no payment is expected.
An invoice from the other party for what you received, on the same basis.
A written record of the agreed value and how it was arrived at, made at the time.
Barter network statements where a network is used, retained per period.
Evidence supporting the fair market value, being the rate card, price list or comparable charged to cash customers.
A note of the business purpose of what was received, which is what supports the deduction.
A running total of barter supplies for the small supplier calculation.
What To Do
Invoice both ways, every time. Commentary's advice is to agree the value, claim it on both sides so the tax implications are equal, and issue receipts to one another.
Charge the tax. A barter is two supplies, and each party has its own obligation measured on what it supplied.
Value at your normal price. The best evidence of fair market value is what you charge cash customers for the same thing.
Test the deduction separately. The income arises because you supplied; the deduction only arises if what you took is a business expense.
Set aside cash at the time of the trade. The tax is payable in money on a transaction that produced none, and on our figures the requirement can approach forty percent of the face value.
Include barter in your threshold count. Supplies are supplies whether or not money moved.
Be careful with related parties. The equal value principle is expressly limited to arm's length dealings.
Watch part-cash deals hardest. An invoice covering only the cash portion is worse than none, because it looks complete.
Recognise the arrangements that are barter without the name. Product for promotion, contra advertising and sponsorship in kind are reciprocal exchanges whatever they are called.
Keep the network statements. Where a network is used it produces the records an informal trade never will.
The Limits Of This Analysis
Several caveats matter. This is not tax advice; whether an exchange produces income depends on the facts and on whether it occurs in the course of a business. Everything is stated as verified in August 2026 and requires confirmation. Our principal source is a CRA technical interpretation from November 2008 accessed through a secondary reproduction, in which CRA states its comments are of a general nature and not binding. We did not obtain Interpretation Bulletin IT-490 itself and quote it only as CRA quotes it; bulletins of that vintage may have been archived or superseded. We identified an apparent numerical inconsistency in that interpretation, report it rather than correcting it, and did not obtain the original to confirm. Our sources diverge on whether income is measured by the value given up or the value received, and we did not resolve which is correct as a matter of law. Several sources are publications of barter exchange operators, who have a commercial interest in the subject, and one point is drawn from an online forum post which we treat as illustrative only. We did not verify the small supplier threshold or its measurement period independently, did not research the treatment of related party exchanges beyond noting that the equal value principle does not apply, did not research the timing question where network credits are earned in one period and spent in another, and did not research the Quebec position beyond a single source. All arithmetic is our own, uses assumed tax rates and hypothetical amounts, and is illustrative only. The two-trap framing, the liquidity analysis, the part-cash observation and the list of arrangements that are barter without the name are our own. This article does not address capital property exchanged in barter, inventory valuation, employment income paid in kind, charitable donations of goods or services, or cryptocurrency, which this publication addresses separately.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is bartering taxable if no money changed hands?
If the trade was even, is there anything to pay?
Do we have to charge GST/HST on a barter?
Where does the cash to pay the tax come from?
Does barter count toward the $30,000 registration threshold?
We only invoiced the cash part of a mixed deal. Is that a problem?
References
- Canada Revenue Agency External Technical Interpretation 2008-0280701E5, 4 November 2008, Barter Transaction: Income Tax and GST Implications, as reproduced by a tax publication service, on CRA's position regarding the income tax implications of a barter transaction being outlined in Interpretation Bulletin IT-490, Barter Transactions; on paragraph 3 of IT-490 describing the principle as one where two persons agree to a reciprocal exchange of goods or services and carry out that exchange usually without using money, and on the fundamental principle in an arm's length barter that each person considers the value of whatever is received to be at least equal to the value of whatever is given up in exchange; on there being no specific provisions in the Income Tax Act dealing with barter transactions and CRA taking the view that they are within the purview of sections 3 and 9; and on the hypothetical of a lawyer invoicing a client for legal services settled through a barter exchange network by accepting a credit in barter units. Note: accessed through a secondary reproduction; CRA states its comments are of a general nature only and are not binding. The hypothetical as reproduced contains figures that are not internally consistent, which we discuss in the text; we did not obtain the original. We did not obtain IT-490 itself. taxinterpretations.com
- Swapsity Business. Business Barter and Taxes, on CRA taking the view that barter transactions are within the purview of the Income Tax Act so that any transaction can result in income or expense and should be considered on the same basis as a transaction involving currency; on barter income and expenses being reportable per IT-490 sections 3, 9 and 69; on CRA's view that giving up a good or providing a service should be treated as though a payment had been received, that payment being the fair market value of the good or service provided to the other party; on agreeing the value of the trade to claim on both sides so the tax implications are equal, and issuing receipts to one another; and on a model operating on direct barter exchanges without using credits as a medium of exchange, making the setting of value important. Note: published by a barter exchange operator, which has a commercial interest in the subject. business.swapsity.ca
- Barter Network. Is Bartering Taxable?, on the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act not specifically defining barter transactions while GST/HST may nonetheless apply in addition to income tax; on CRA expecting participants to collect and remit GST/HST if applicable, just as with any cash transaction; on participants needing to be mindful of registration requirements; and on the need to maintain proper records including invoices, agreements or receipts clearly outlining the goods or services exchanged along with their fair market value, with failure potentially resulting in penalties or audits. Note: published by a barter exchange operator. barternetwork.ca
- Barter Network. Navigating Canadian Tax Laws for Barter Exchanges, on bartering being treated as a taxable transaction in Canada so that goods or services exchanged must be reported as income; on the need to assess the fair market value of items or services exchanged; on businesses needing meticulous records to substantiate value as CRA may request documentation during audits; on barter exchanges not necessarily coming with paper trails, making record-keeping indispensable; and on an example in which a print job is not a normal business expense for a store owner, who therefore cannot claim the cost. Note: published by a barter exchange operator. barternetwork.ca
- Mackisen CPA. Bartering and Taxes: How Trading Goods and Services Is Treated by the CRA, on CRA considering a barter to occur when two parties agree to a reciprocal exchange of goods or services and carry out that exchange without using money; on the Income Tax Act treating barter trades as within its scope so that they can result in business income, business expenses or capital gains just as a cash sale would; on trading a product or service for something else not avoiding tax but meaning the payment was in-kind; on CRA stating that a barter transaction is essentially two supplies, one from each party, so each side must consider GST/HST and in Quebec QST on their supply; and on Revenu Quebec overseeing QST in addition to provincial income tax, with QST applying much as the federal GST/HST does, so Quebec businesses must satisfy two tax authorities. Note: an accounting firm publication. mackisen.com
- TaxTool.ca. The Tax Implications of Bartering and Trade, on barter being treated like a cash transaction for businesses so that bartered income must be included in gross income and recorded in the books; on businesses reporting the fair market value of goods or services received as income in the tax year the transaction occurred; on business-related goods or services provided in a barter often being deductible as a business expense; on barter networks using credit or trade dollars, with the reported value equivalent to the trade dollars or credits used; and on GST/HST applying to bartering transactions within networks where the goods or services traded are subject to it. Note: a tax information website. taxtool.ca
- Rotfleisch & Samulovitch PC. (2022, January). Taxation of Cryptocurrency and Barter Transactions, on barter transactions always giving rise to both Canadian income tax and GST/HST obligations; on CRA's view that a barter transaction is effected when any two persons agree to a reciprocal exchange of goods or services; on a supplier with less than $30,000 in total supply for four consecutive calendar quarters being a small supplier exempt from registering and collecting GST/HST; on a non-exempt seller in a barter involving cryptocurrency being required to remit based on the fair market value received rather than on the fair market value of the goods or services sold; and on the obligation to remit being in Canadian dollars. Note: a tax law firm publication, accessed through a syndication platform; its statement on which side to value differs from other sources and we report the divergence without resolving it. mondaq.com
- Online discussion contribution regarding bartering in a trading card business, on a GST/HST registrant needing to charge tax on the full value of a sale rather than only the cash portion, and correspondingly being able to claim input tax credits on acquisitions made through trade. Note: an online forum post, not professional guidance; we include it as an illustration of a proposition that follows from the two-supply principle and do not rely on it alone. claimyr.com
This article is provided for general informational purposes and is not tax advice. Its principal source is a 2008 CRA technical interpretation which CRA states is not binding, accessed through a secondary reproduction and containing an apparent numerical inconsistency reported in the text. Interpretation Bulletin IT-490 was not obtained. Several sources are published by barter exchange operators and one is an online forum post. All arithmetic is the authors' own and is illustrative only.