Heald,
J.:—We
do
not
need
to
hear
you,
Ms.
Lee.
We
are
all
of
the
view
that
the
learned
trial
judge
correctly
applied
the
provisions
of
paragraph
20(1
)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
to
the
facts
of
this
case.
We
share
his
view
that
an
essential
requirement
for
interest
deductions
thereunder
is
the
continued
existence
of
the
source
to
which
the
interest
expense
relates.
We
also
agree
that
where,
as
in
this
case,
the
source
has
been
terminated,
the
interest
expense
is
no
longer
deductible.
If
there
were
any
ambiguity
in
the
English
words
"a
business
or
property”
in
subsection
20(1)
as
to
whether
the
indefinite
article
"a”
should
be
understood
to
be
repeated
before
"property”,
that
potential
problem
is
removed
by
the
French
version
of
the
Act,
where
the
indefinite
article
is
inserted
before
both
nouns:
"d'une
enterprise
ou
d’un
bien”
(emphasis
added).
This
is
also
true
of
the
French
versions
of
the
same
phrase
when
used
in
subsections
9(1),
9(2),
12(1)
and
18(1)
of
the
Act.
The
word
"property”
in
subsection
20(1)
clearly,
therefore,
cannot
have
the
collective
meaning
urged
by
the
appellant.
Accordingly
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Since
this
appears
to
be
a
test
case
in
this
Court,
the
Court
exercises
its
discretion
in
favour
of
the
appellant
and
does
not
award
costs
against
him
in
this
Court.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content