Pratte,
J:—The
only
issue
on
this
appeal
is
whether
the
Trial
Division
was
right
in
holding
that,
in
computing
his
capital
gain
from
the
disposition
of
gold
bullion,
the
respondent
could
deduct,
as
part
of
his
cost,
interest
on
the
unpaid
portion
of
the
price
of
the
bullion
and
safe
keeping
charges
that
he
had
incurred
in
respect
of
the
period
during
which
he
had
held
the
bullion.
In
deciding
that
those
interest
and
charges
could
be
deducted,
the
learned
trial
judge
did
not
rely
on
any
provision
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
but
rather
on
what,
in
his
view,
would
have
been
the
intention
of
Parliament
had
it
given
consideration
to
that
question.
We
cannot
agree
with
that
approach.
In
trying
to
support
that
judgment,
counsel
for
the
respondent
argued
in
substance
that
capital
gain
should
be
computed
according
to
the
same
rules
as
income
from
a
business
or
property.
That
argument,
while
attractive,
does
not
find
any
support
in
the
Income
Tax
Act,
which
provides
special
rules
for
the
computation
of
capital
gain.
Under
those
rules,
as
they
are
found
in
subparagraph
40(l)(c)(i)
[sic]
and
section
54,
the
interest
and
safe
keeping
charges
here
in
question
could
be
deductible
only
if
they
were
part
of
the
cost
of
the
bullion.
In
our
opinion,
they
were
not.
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.*
The
appeal
will
therefore
be
allowed
with
costs,
the
judgment
of
the
Trial
Division
will
be
set
aside,
the
respondent’s
action
will
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content