Docket: 2007-12(IT)I
BETWEEN:
KAMRAN ESKANDARI,
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal
heard on June 28, 2007 at Halifax, Nova Scotia
Before: The Honourable
Justice Wyman W. Webb
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The
Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Lindsay D. Holland
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the reassessment made under the Income Tax Act ("Act")
for the 2004 taxation year is allowed in part and the matter is referred back
to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment on the
basis that the adjusted cost base of the Toronto condominium property sold by the Appellant in 2004 should be
increased by $9,972.71. In all other respects the appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Halifax, Nova Scotia this 18th day of July,
2007.
"Wyman W. Webb"
Citation: 2007TCC419
Date: 20070718
Docket: 2007-12(IT)I
BETWEEN:
KAMRAN ESKANDARI,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Webb, J.
[1] The Appellant
acquired from Saeid Sarrafian the rights that Mr. Sarrafian had to purchase a
condominium that was to be built in Toronto. Mr. Sarrafian had entered into an agreement
directly with the developer to purchase this condominium and had sold his
rights under this agreement to the Appellant. The Appellant had originally
intended to move to Toronto and live in the condominium but after having spent
a week in the condominium in Toronto in 2003 he changed his mind and decided to sell the
condominium. The condominium was sold in 2004.
[2] There are two items
that were in dispute in relation to this matter. Both items relate to the
calculation of the adjusted cost base of the property to the Appellant. The
Appellant claims that he is entitled to have two additional amounts added to
his adjusted cost base:
(a) an
amount of $9,972.71 that the Appellant has described as “finder’s fee”; and
(b) the
amount of $19,444.15 which is comprised of 11 monthly payments of the following
amounts:
(i) estimated
total common expenses: $468.02 / month;
(ii) estimated
realty taxes: $235.00/ month; and
(iii) estimated
interest on vendor take back mortgage at 6%: $1,064.63 / month.
Finder’s Fee
[3] The Appellant
described the amount of $9,972.71 that was paid at the direction of Saeid
Sarrafian as a finder’s fee. However, this amount was paid to the person from
whom the Appellant acquired the rights to purchase this condominium. Therefore,
it would not be a finder’s fee that was paid to a third party acting as an intermediary
or agent in relation to the deal, but actually paid to the person from whom the
Appellant acquired the rights to purchase the condominium. Although this amount
was wired to an account in the name of Mano J. Fooladi, the Appellant
testified, and I accept his testimony, that this was the account information
given to him by Mr. Sarrafian and therefore this amount was paid to this account
for the benefit of Mr. Sarrafian.
[4] As a result, this
amount should have been added to the adjusted cost base of the property as it
represented a part of the cost of acquiring the rights of Mr. Sarrafian
under the Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the condominium developer and hence part of the Appellant’s
cost of acquiring the condominium.
Common Expenses / Realty Taxes /
Interest
[5] The developer
notified the Appellant that the closing of the purchase and sale of the
condominium was to be completed on August 5, 2003. However, the Appellant, at
that time, was not satisfied with the conditions of the property. He testified
that he stayed at the condominium for a few nights but the hallways were not
completed and therefore there was a lot of dust in the hallways and there was a
constant testing of the fire alarms. As a result, the Appellant returned the
keys to the developer and did not return to the condominium. However, as far as
the developer was concerned, the closing date was August 5, 2003, and
therefore, the developer charged the Appellant the following monthly payments
for the eleven month period from August 5, 2003 to the date that the Appellant
completed the closing in July of 2004:
(a) estimated common
expenses: $468.02 / month;
(b) estimated realty
taxes: $235.00 / month; and
(c) estimated
interest on vendor take back mortgage at 6%: $1,064.63 / month.
[6] The Appellant
stated that he was required to pay additional interest because he did not complete
the closing until July, 2004.
[7] The Federal Court
of Appeal in Her Majesty the Queen v. Stirling [1985] 1 C.T.C. 275, 85
DTC 5199, stated as follows:
As we understand it, the word 'cost' in those
sections means the price that the taxpayer gave up in order to get the asset;
it does not include any expense that he may have incurred in order to put
himself in a position to pay that price or to keep the property afterwards.
[8] The sections that
are referred to above are the sections related to the calculation of a capital
gain.
[9] In this particular
case, the 11 payments of $1,767.65 each for the common expenses, realty taxes
and interest on the vendor take back mortgage are all amounts that are payable
for the period following the date on which the closing was scheduled to take
place, i.e., all following August 5, 2003.
[10] Although the
Appellant testified that, in his opinion, the condominium was not ready to be
occupied at that time, he was unsuccessful in dealing with the developer and
convincing the developer that the condominium was not ready to be occupied and
the closing date should be postponed. As a result, the payment for these items was
not payment for the purchase of the property but rather was payment for the amounts
that he was required to pay in July of 2004 for common area expenses, property
taxes and interest for the period that was subsequent to the scheduled closing
date of August 5, 2003 and were amounts that he had to pay to put himself in a
position to pay the purchase price.
[11] As a result, the
amount of $19,444.15 should not be added to the adjusted cost base of this
property and hence the appeal in relation to this matter is dismissed.
Signed at Halifax, Nova Scotia this
18th day of July, 2007.
"Wyman W. Webb"
CITATION: 2007TCC419
COURT FILE NO.: 2007-12(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: Kamran Eskandari v. The Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: June 28, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Justice Wyman W. Webb
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 18, 2007
APPEARANCES:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Lindsay D. Holland
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content