The
Chief
Justice
(concurred
in
by
Lacroix
and
Mackay,
DJJ—judgment
delivered
from
the
Bench):—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
the
Trial
Division
dismissing
with
costs
an
“appeal”
from
a
reassessment
of
the
appellant’s
tax
under
Part
I
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
for
the
1966
taxation
year.
I
am
of
opinion
that
the
appellant
has
not
succeeded
in
showing
any
error
in
the
decision
of
the
learned
trial
judge,
whose
reasons
I
adopt.
I
shall,
however,
put,
in
my
own
words,
one
way
in
which,
in
my
view,
the
matter
can
be
regarded.
The
appellant
was,
at
all
relevant
times,
engaged
in
the
“rendering”
business
which
involved
acquiring
certain
waste
products,
processing
them,
and
selling
the
resultant
products.
One
of
its
principal
competing
operations
was
carried
on
by
Canada
Packers
and
subsidiary
corporations
of
Canada
Packers,
one
of
which
was
called
City
Renderers
Limited.
For
its
own
reasons,
Canada
Packers
carried
on
that
business
in
the
name
of
that
subsidiary.
The
principal
field
for
competition
in
the
rendering
business
was
the
acquisition
of
the
waste
products
rather
than
the
marketing
of
the
processed
products.
The
business
arrangement
giving
rise
to
the
question
in
dispute
was
one
under
which
the
appellant
acquired,
for
$500,000,
the
shares
in
City
Renderers
Limited,
on
terms
(a)
that
City
Renderers
Limited
would
have
a
five-year
contract
to
acquire
the
waste
products
produced
by
Canada
Packers
on
an
agreed
price
basis,
(b)
that
Canada
Packers
and
its
subsidiaries
would
cease
to
carry
on
business
in
the
“rendering”
field,
and
(c)
that
the
appellant
would
have
the
“goodwill”
of
City
Renderers
Limited
insofar
as
its
sources
of
supply
for
the
waste
products
other
than
Canada
Packers
were
concerned.
In
these
circumstances,
the
appellant
contends
that
the
$500,000
was,
as
a
commercial
matter,
paid
exclusively
for
the
five-year
contract
with
Canada
Packers
for
waste
products
and
was,
therefore,
a
current
cost
of
the
operation
of
its
“rendering”
business.
Without
holding
that
in
no
circumstances
can
money
paid
for
shares
in
a
company
that
has
no
assets
other
than
goods
desired
by
the
purchaser
as
inventory
be
regarded
as
the
cost
of
inventory
or
otherwise
as
a
payment
of
a
current
nature,
in
the
circumstances
of
this
case,
where,
on
the
face
of
the
matter,
the
transaction
had
for
one
of
its
objects
and
for
one
of
its
effects
the
elimination
of
a
competitor
and
the
acquisition
of
its
goodwill,
I
am
of
opinion
that
the
appeal
fails
on
the
facts.
Email this Content