In Ollenberger v. The Queen (2013 FCA 74), the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) reversed the Tax Court of Canada (TCC) and held that “active business” is specifically defined in s. 248(1) to mean “any business” other than two specific types of businesses specifically carved out (i.e., a specified investment business and a personal services business). Surprisingly, the TCC earlier held that the word “active” in the defined phrase “active business” must mean something because it is descriptive of the word “business”. Rejecting this view, the FCA said the word “active” does indeed have meaning, but that meaning must be taken from the definition of “active business” (an obvious point, it would seem). The FCA further reviewed the history of the definition, and held that the “active business” concept was plainly meant to capture “any business” other than the two specifically excluded types of businesses. On the facts, the record clearly showed that the company in question was “actively pursuing ventures” involving the potential acquisition of oil and gas properties: this plainly qualified as a business. Furthermore, this was consistent with earlier case law which clarified that “carrying on a business” requires only a minimum degree of activity, such that most corporations are in fact carrying on a business (Weaver v. Canada, 2008 FCA 238).