Ryan, J (concurred in by Kerr and Sheppard, DJJ) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from the judgment of the Trial Division, dated April 22, 1976, which dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a judgment of the Tax Review Board. The appeal is in relation to a series of assessments for income tax for the taxation years from 1969 to 1972 inclusive. The assessments were in respect of interest payments made by persons resident in Canada to the appellant, a non-resident. The interest was paid on unpaid balances of the purchase price of lots of land sold-by the appellant. The lots are located at a place called Sudden Valley in the State of Washington. The tax in respect of each of the years from 1969 to 1971 inclusive was assessed by virtue of Part III of the Income Tax Act then in force; that in respect of 1972 under Part XIII of the Act then and now in force.
Because of section 805 of the Income Tax Regulations the appellant would not be taxable under Part III or Part XII if it was carrying on business in Canada during the relevant years and the payments were reasonably attributable to the business. The critical question then is: Was the appellant carrying on business in Canada during these years?
The facts of the case are stated in the reasons for judgment of the learned trial judge. It is clear on the facts that the appellant was not carrying on business in Canada unless its activities fall within the extended definition of “carrying on business in Canada” as set forth in paragraph 253(b) of the Income Tax Act:
253. Where, in a taxation year, a non-resident person
(a) . . .
(b) solicited orders or offered anything for sale in Canada through an agent or servant whether the contract or transaction was to be completed inside or outside Canada or partly in and partly outside Canada,
he shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have been carrying on business in Canada in the year.
This paragraph is in the same terms as paragraph 139(7)(b) of the former Act, the paragraph applicable to the taxation years from 1969 to 1971 inclusive.
The learned trial judge made these findings [p 300]:
. . . From a glance at the evidence in this case, which I have summarized above, it is abundantly clear that no offer was obtained and no attempt was made to obtain any in Canada and it is equally clear that nothing was offered for sale in Canada either through an agent or otherwise. One must therefore conclude that the real estate business of the plaintiff was not being carried on in Canada even within the extended meaning given to that term by paragraph 253(b).
The only activity carried on in Canada by the plaintiff was that of attempting to induce Canadians to visit Sudden Valley in the hope that some might eventually become interested in buying property there.
These findings are supported by the evidence and are decisive of the issue. Indeed, the final finding would itself be enough.
I would dismiss the appeal with costs.