Bowman
T.C.J.:
These
appeals
were
heard
together.
They
involve
the
deduction
of
expenses
paid
by
the
appellants
in
the
1990,
1991
and
1992
taxation
years
in
connection
with
a
venture
engaged
in
by
them
with
three
companies,
Ka-
notta
R
&
D
Corporation
(“Kanotta”),
Pop
Media
Ltd.
(“Pop
Media”)
and
Online
Applications
Specific
Integrated
Solutions
Corporation
(“O.A.S.LS.”)
as
well
as
the
recognition
of
amounts
of
income
received
by
them
from
the
venture.
Andre
Gagnon’s
involvement
was
through
a
sole
proprietorship
G.A.G.
Software
(“G.A.G.”).
The
involvement
of
Mrs.
Gail
Petrie
and
her
late
husband,
Dr.
C.
Byron
Petrie,
in
the
venture
was
through
a
partnership
Ryeburn
Holdings,
in
which
they
were
the
sole
and
equal
partners.
Charles
and
Gordon
Beardsley
were
involved
in
the
venture
as
equal
partners
in
a
partnership,
C
&
G
Systems.
Separate
Partial
Agreed
Statements
of
Fact
were
filed
for
each
group
of
appellants.
In
broad
outline
the
facts
are
substantially
similar.
I
shall
reproduce
only
the
Partial
Agreed
Statement
of
Fact
relating
to
Andre
Gagnon
as
representative.
The
figures
differ
somewhat
in
the
case
of
the
Petries
(Ryeburn
Holdings)
and
the
Beardsleys
(C
&
G
Systems).
The
Gagnon
Partial
Agreed
Statement
of
Fact
reads
as
follows:
Partial
Agreed
Statement
of
Fact
1.
The
Appellant,
Andre
Gagnon
is
an
individual
residing
at
3
Bracken
Crescent,
Gloucester,
Ontario,
Kl
J
8N5.
2.
At
all
material
times,
the
Appellant
was
the
proprietor
operating
under
the
style
G.A.G.
Software.
3.
The
Appellant
appeals
reassessments
dated
January
4,
1994,
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
under
the
Income
Tax
Act
for
the
taxation
years
1990,
1991
and
1992.
4.
The
Appellant
filed
Notices
of
Objection
within
the
time
limitations
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
5.
By
Notification
of
Confirmation
dated
July
14,
1997,
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
confirmed
the
reassessments.
6.
Pursuant
to
a
written
Agreement
dated
December
21,
1988,
G.A.G.
Software
paid
Kanotta
R
&
D
Corporation
(Kanotta)
$46,000.00
and
$60,000.00
for
a
total
of
$106,000.00
for
research
material
and
services
more
specifically
set
out
in
the
Agreement.
7.
On
December
23,
1988,
G.A.G.
Software
entered
into
a
written
asset
purchase
agreement
with
Online
Applications
Specific
Integrated
Solutions
Corporation
(O.A.S.l.S.)
whereby
G.A.G.
Software
purchased
for
$40,000.00
certain
software
and
related
technical
assistance
as
set
out
in
the
said
agreement.
8.
By
a
written
Licence
Agreement
dated
December
28,
1988,
G.A.G.
Software
licenced
the
applications
software
for
use
by
Pop
Media
Ltd.
in
Canada
and
the
United
States
of
America
until
December
31,
1994.
The
Agreement
provided
for
Pop
Media
Ltd.
to
pay
G.A.G.
Software
on
January
31
st
in
each
year
commencing
on
January
31,
1989,
and
ending
on
January
31,
1994,
a
licencing
fee
in
an
amount
equal
to
$20.00
per
unit
utilizing
the
applications
software
during
the
preceding
year
subject
to
a
minimum
payment
of
$20,000.00
per
annum.
9.
At
the
time
of
the
closing
of
the
licensing
transaction,
Pop
Media
Ltd.
paid
G.A.G.
Software
$100,000.00
on
terms
more
specifically
set
out
in
the
said
agreement.
10.
The
Appellant
included
as
gross
revenue
for
each
of
the
taxation
years
1989,
1990,
1991,
1992
and
1993
an
amount
of
$20,000.00
per
annum
representing
the
minimum
royalty
payments
for
each
year
to
G.A.G.
Software.
11.
By
Notice
of
Reassessment
dated
January
4,
1994,
the
Minister
increased
the
gross
revenue
from
the
Licence
Agreement
dated
December
28,
1988
by
$60,000.00
for
1990
and
reduced
the
gross
revenue
from
that
Licence
Agreement
to
nil
for
subsequent
years
on
the
basis
that
the
Appellant
had
disposed
of
his
property
by
virtue
of
an
amending
agreement
dated
August
9,
1990
and
on
the
basis
that
the
Appellant
was
not
entitled
to
a
reserve
pursuant
to
paragraph
20(1
)(m)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
12.
G.A.G.
Software
entered
into
a
written
Agreement
dated
December
10,
1990,
with
Kanotta
whereby
G.A.G.
Software
paid
to
Kanotta
$70,000.00
and
$110,000.00
for
a
total
of
$180,000.00
for
research
material
and
referral
fees
as
more
specifically
set
out
in
the
said
Agreement.
13.
G.A.G.
Software
entered
into
a
written
agreement
dated
December
10,
1990,
with
Pop
Media
Ltd.
whereby
Pop
Media
Ltd.
was
licensed
to
use
the
software
in
Mexico
and
all
Latin
American
countries
for
point-of-
purchase
applications
until
December
31,
1996.
14.
Pursuant
to
this
Licence
Agreement,
Pop
Media
Ltd.
was
required
to
pay
G.A.G.
Software
a
licensing
fee
of
$50.00
per
unit
utilising
G.A.G.
Software
software,
subject
to
a
minimum
payment
of
$44,000.00
for
the
period
January
31,
1991,
to
December
31,
1992,
half
of
which
was
to
be
paid
in
each
year.
15.
In
order
partially
to
finance
this
purchase
from
Kanotta,
G.A.G.
Software
borrowed
$126,000.00
from
888258
Ontario
Ltd.
This
loan
was
secured
by
the
following:
(a)
assignment
of
the
Appellant’s
right
to
the
minimum
annual
payment
pursuant
to
the
second
License
Agreement;
(b)
pledge
of
the
Appellant’s
preferred
shares
of
Pop
Media
Ltd.;
and
(c)
Promissory
Note
executed
by
the
Appellant,
bearing
interest
at
15.75%.
16.
The
Appellant
claimed
as
an
expense
in
1990
an
amount
of
$
180,000.00
being
the
amount
paid
to
Kanotta.
17.
By
a
written
Agreement
dated
August
9,
1990,
G.A.G.
Software
and
Pop
Media
Ltd.
amended
the
1988
Licence
Agreement
in
terms
more
specifically
set
out
therein.
18.
By
a
written
Agreement
dated
April
15,
1991,
G.A.G.
Software
and
Pop
Media
Ltd.
amended
the
1990
Licence
Agreement
in
terms
more
specifically
set
out
therein.
19.
On
May
3,
1991,
G.A.G.
Software
entered
into
an
Agreement
with
Pop
Media
Ltd.
whereby
G.A.G.
Software
paid
to
Pop
Media
Ltd.
$290,000.00
for
market
development
costs
associated
with
the
commercial
exploitation
of
the
application
software
and
granted
to
Pop
Media
a
license
to
use
the
software
in
the
Mexico
City
subway
system
until
May
3,
1997.
20.
In
order
partially
to
finance
the
said
transaction
with
Pop
Media
Ltd.,
G.A.G.
Software
initially
obtained
a
loan
in
the
amount
of
$265,000.00
from
888258
Ontario
Ltd.
Subsequently,
the
Appellant
made
payments
on
January
18,
1992,
February
18,
1992,
and
March
18,
1992,
totalling
$65,000.00
and
so
reduced
the
indebtedness
to
$200,000.00.
21.
In
1991
the
Appellant
claimed
as
an
expense
$290,000.00
paid
to
Pop
Media
Ltd.
and
$19,845.00
for
interest
paid
by
G.A.G.
Software
to
888258
Ontario
Ltd.
in
that
year.
22.
In
1992,
the
Appellant
claimed
an
expense
in
the
amount
of
$55,052.00
for
interest
paid
by
G.A.G.
Software
to
888258
Ontario
Ltd.
in
that
year.
Originally,
there
were
two
broad
issues
(the
figures
relate
to
Mr.
Gagnon):
(a)
the
deductibility
of
the
amounts
of
$70,000
and
$110,000
paid
by
Mr.
Gagnon
to
Kanotta
in
1990
and
the
amount
of
$290,000
paid
in
1991
to
Pop
Media
and
the
deductibility
of
the
interest
of
$19,855
and
$55,052
paid
to
888258
Ontario
Ltd.
in
1991
and
1992
respectively;
(b)
the
treatment
of
the
sum
of
$100,000
received
by
G.A.G.
in
1988.
I
can
deal
with
the
second
issue
fairly
quickly,
because
it
was
disposed
of
on
consent,
albeit
in
a
somewhat
peculiar
way.
The
appellants
originally
reported
the
$100,000
over
5
years,
under
paragraph
12(1)(/),
1989,
1990,
1991,
1992
and
1993,
or
$20,000
each
year,
on
the
basis
that
they
were
entitled
to
a
reserve
under
paragraph
20(1)(m).
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
accepted
the
reporting
of
the
$20,000
in
1989,
but
for
1990
included
in
income
not
only
the
$20,000
reported
for
that
year,
but
also
a
further
$60,000
that
the
appellants
had
reported
in
1991,
1992
and
1993.
The
theory
upon
which
the
additional
$60,000
was
included
in
1990
was
never
made
particularly
clear,
although
the
Crown
did
take
the
position
that
the
$100,000
received
in
1988
was
income
from
property
and
not
a
business
and
that
the
appellants
were
not
entitled
to
a
reserve
under
paragraph
20(1)(m).
The
appellants
countered
with
the
argument
that
if
the
$100,000
was
income
from
property
and
not
a
business
it
should
all
have
been
included
in
1988
which,
as
it
happens,
was
a
statute-barred
year.
The
Crown,
perceiving
the
precarious
position
it
had
put
itself
in,
decided
to
make
the
best
of
a
bad
situation
and
filed
a
consent
at
the
opening
of
trial,
which
reads
as
follows:
Consent
to
Judgment
The
Respondent
consents
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
disposing
of
these
appeals
for
the
1990,
1991
and
1992
taxation
years
by
allowing
them
and
by
referring
the
reassessments
back
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment
on
the
basis
that
the
income
received
by
the
Appellants
as
a
result
of
the
licensing
agreements
entered
into
with
PopMedia
Ltd.
in
December
1988,
was
earned
over
the
life
of
those
agreements,
as
originally
reported
by
the
Appellants
in
their
income
tax
returns.
Counsel
for
the
appellants
never
signed
the
consent,
but
treated
it
as
an
admission
that
the
appellants
were
carrying
on
a
business
because
it
was
only
on
the
basis
that
they
were
carrying
on
a
business
that
the
$100,000
could
be
spread
over
five
years
under
paragraphs
12(1)(/)
and
20
(1)(m).
The
wording
of
the
consent
is
a
little
strange,
and
is
apparently
designed
to
avoid
any
admission
that
a
business
was
being
carried
on.
In
any
event
counsel
for
the
appellants
decided
to
accept
the
treatment
consented
to
by
the
respondent
and
so
the
preliminary
tactical
skirmish
was
resolved.
It
should
however
be
noted
in
passing
that
to
spread
a
payment
of
an
income
nature
that
has
been
received
in
one
year
over
five
years
requires
statutory
authority.
It
cannot
be
done
on
the
basis
set
out
in
the
“Consent
to
Judgment”
that
it
was
“earned
over
the
life
of
those
agreements”.
Such
a
basis
is
legally
and
factually
incorrect:
paragraph
12(1)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act;
Ikea
Ltd.
v.
R.,
[1998]
1
S.C.R.
196
(S.C.C.).
The
conclusion
that
I
have
reached
that
the
$100,000
was
income
from
a
business
provides
that
statutory
basis
under
paragraphs
12(
I
)(/)
and
20(
I
)(m).
I
am
not,
however,
prepared
to
accept
the
so-called
consent
as
an
admission
that
the
appellants
were
carrying
on
a
business.
Such
a
conclusion
is
one
of
law
(Associated
Investors
of
Canada
Ltd.
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(1967),
67
D.T.C.
5096
(Can.
Ex.
Ct.))
and
an
admission
of
law
is
not
binding
on
the
court
(L.I.U.N.A.,
Local
527
Members
Training
Trust
Fund
v.
R.
(1992),
92
D.T.C.
2365
(T.C.C.).
I
have
concluded
independently
that
the
income
which
the
appellants
received
or
anticipated
was
income
from
a
business.
I
come
now
to
the
main
issue
—
the
deductibility
of
the
amounts
paid
by
the
appellants
in
1990
and
1991
and
the
deduction
of
interest.
The
amounts
were
in
fact
paid.
In
each
case
they
were
paid
for
a
particular
type
of
software
to
be
used
by
Pop
Media
in
connection
with
an
ambitious
marketing
strategy
which
it
had
developed
to
sell
to
retailers
such
as
Toys
R
Us,
K
Mart
Group,
7-Eleven,
the
Liquor
Control
Board
of
Ontario
and
the
Toronto
Skydome.
The
business
opportunities
were
fully
and
carefully
researched.
The
appellants
are
all
knowledgeable
and
sophisticated
investors.
Andre
Gagnon
is
the
owner
of
a
chain
of
gasoline
stations.
Gail
Petrie
is
a
successful
lawyer
and
her
late
husband
was
a
doctor.
The
Beardsleys
are
insurance
brokers.
The
software
that
formed
the
basis
of
the
acquisition
was
in
each
case
a
module
to
be
used
in
connection
with
the
point
of
purchase
marketing
strategy
to
be
marketed
by
Pop
Media.
In
the
case
of
the
Beardleys,
the
module
was
a
self-programming
display
feature.
In
the
case
of
Mr.
Gagnon,
the
application
software
was
a
device
permitting
messages
to
be
loaded
en
masse
during
off-peak
hours
and
to
be
selectively
displayed
at
specific
times
during
the
week.
This
software
was
described
as
“valid
range
time”.
In
the
case
of
the
Petries,
the
applications
software
was
a
communications
interface
that
verified
that
messages
displayed
were
authorized
and
restricted
unauthorized
access
to
the
display
units.
Each
of
these
types
of
software
was
necessary
to
the
point
of
purchase
marketing
system,
which
Pop
Media
was
promoting
and
marketing.
I
shall
deal
with
each
of
the
contentions
put
forward
by
the
respondent.
It
was
argued
at
some
length
that
the
income
earned
and
expected
to
be
earned
by
the
appellants
was
income
from
property
and
that
the
range
of
expenses
deductible
in
computing
income
from
property
is
more
restricted
than
in
the
case
of
income
from
a
business.
I
know
of
no
authority
that
would
justify
a
more
restrictive
treatment
of
expenses
relating
to
the
earning
of
property
income.
Although
it
makes
no
difference
to
the
deductibility
of
expenses
whether
the
income
is
from
property
or
from
a
business,
I
think
the
better
view
is
that
the
income
that
the
appellants
earned
or
anticipated
earning
is
income
from
a
business,
as
that
word
is
defined
in
section
248.
I
might
observe
in
passing
that
if
I
accepted
the
respondent’s
argument
that
the
income
was
from
property
rather
than
a
business,
the
$100,000
received
in
the
statute-barred
year
1988
would
have
been
taxable
in
that
year
and
could
not
be
spread
over
five
years
under
paragraphs
12(1)(/)
and
20(1)(m).
There
was
no
suggestion
that
the
amounts
expended
were
on
capital
account,
but
the
respondent
argued
that
they
were
not
laid
out
for
the
purpose
of
gaining
or
producing
income
from
property
or
a
business.
I
fail
to
see
how
they
could
not
have
been.
What
we
have
here,
pure
and
simple,
is
a
risky,
audacious
and
imaginative
undertaking.
The
sole
purpose
of
the
expenditures
was
the
earning
of
substantial
income.
Even
discounting
to
some
degree
the
somewhat
sanguine
financial
predictions
of
Mr.
Eric
Hutchingame,
a
consummate
salesman
who
projected
an
air
of
enthusiasm,
optimism
and
competence,
the
appellants
had
every
reason
to
believe
that
substantial
profits
would
be
earned.
Examples
of
this
are
the
letter
of
October
5,
1990
to
the
Beardleys,
the
letters
of
October
5,
1991
and
February
26,
1991
to
Mr.
Gagnon,
or
the
Status
Report
of
February
15,
1990
(Petrie
Book
of
Documents,
Exhibit
A-10,
Tab
16),
or
the
Report
to
Shareholders
of
March
28,
1990
(Tab
19),
to
mention
only
a
few.
I
find
as
a
fact
that
the
appellants
all
embarked
on
the
venture
in
the
reasonable
expectation
that
it
could
yield
significant
profits.
This
was
based
in
part
on
a
favourable
report
from
Nielsen
Marketing
Research
as
well
as
the
substantial
volume
of
other
material
supplied
to
the
appellants
and
meetings
with
Mr.
Baker
and
Mr.
Hutchingame
of
Pop
Media.
The
subsequent
expenditures
were
equally
carefully
researched.
It
must
be
recognized
that
although
the
enterprise
was
risky,
the
field
of
high
tech
software
is
a
burgeoning
one
and
had
the
enterprise
met
even
a
portion
of
the
projections
of
the
chairman
of
Pop
Media,
Mr.
William
Baker,
and
Mr.
Eric
Hutchingame,
it
would
have
made
the
appellants
millionaires.
Indeed
the
faith
of
the
appellants
Gagnon
and
the
Petries
in
the
venture
is
confirmed
by
their
further
subscription
for
shares.
I
am
not
oblivious
to
the
fact
that
it
was
believed
that
an
IPO
was
in
the
offing,
but
for
a
number
of
reasons
it
did
not
materialize.
Nonetheless,
it
was
a
part
of
the
commercial
venture
in
which
the
appellants
were
engaged.
So
far
as
the
suggestion
that
the
amounts
paid
were
unreasonable
is
concerned,
the
evidence
simply
does
not
support
that
conclusion.
The
costs
of
developing
the
software
in
fact
exceeded
the
price
at
which
it
was
sold.
The
cost
of
promoting
and
developing
the
market
in
the
United
States,
Canada
and
Mexico
was
substantial.
Expenses
are
not
unreasonable
simply
because
they
are
substantial.
Here,
they
were
commensurate
with
the
anticipated
returns.
For
an
expense
to
be
unreasonable
it
must,
based
upon
objective
criteria
and
comparison,
be
one
that
a
reasonable
businessperson
would
not
have
incurred
having
in
mind
only
the
commercial
advantage
sought,
(Gabco
Ltd.
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(1968),
68
D.T.C.
5210
(Can.
Ex.
Ct.)).
This
case
in
my
opinion
is
a
striking
example
of
the
Minister
second-
guessing
the
business
acumen
and
judgment
of
experienced
and
intelligent
businesspersons.
In
Nichol
v.
R.
(1993),
93
D.T.C.
1216
(T.C.C.)
at
1219
,
I
said:
[Mr.
Nichol]
made
what
might,
in
retrospect,
be
seen
as
an
error
in
judgment
but
it
was
a
matter
of
business
judgment
and
it
was
not
one
so
patently
unreasonable
as
to
entitle
this
Court
or
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
to
substitute
its
or
his
judgment
for
it,
or
penalize
him
for
having
made
a
judgment
call
that,
with
the
benefit
of
20-20
hindsight,
that
Monday
morning
quarterbacks
always
have,
1
or
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
might
not
make
today.
We
were,
after
all,
not
there
in
1986.
This
statement
was
approved
in
Tonn
v.
R.
(1995),
96
D.T.C.
6001
(Fed.
C.A.),
except
for
the
word
“patently”.
The
respondent,
in
support
of
the
proposition
that
the
payments
were
not
made,
relies
upon
the
fact
that
the
payments
were
made
with
money
borrowed
through
non-recourse
loans
from
888258
Ontario
Ltd.
secured
by
an
assignment
of
the
appellants’
shares.
This
fact
in
my
view
is
irrelevant.
The
money
was
borrowed
and
paid.
Had
the
venture
been
as
successful
as
anticipated
it
would
have
been
repaid.
The
fact
that
the
lender
subsequently
took
over
the
security
may
have
consequences
under
section
79
or
section
80,
but
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
issue
before
me
in
these
cases.
The
final
point
made
by
the
respondent
is
that
“the
transactions
were
a
scheme,
the
sole
purpose
of
which
was
to
enable
the
Appellant[s]
to
receive
an
income
tax
refund
in
excess
of
[their]
actual
cash
outlay...”.
The
argument
is
without
merit.
It
was
not
the
appellants’
purpose
at
all.
Even
mathematically
it
is
wrong.
It
completely
ignores
the
solid
commercial
basis
upon
which
the
expenditures
were
made.
It
is
unsupported
conjecture
and
moreover
it
makes
no
economic
sense.
No
rational
person
spends
$100
to
obtain
a
tax
advantage
of
$54.
That
is
neither
tax
avoidance
nor
tax
planning.
It
is
fiscal
foolishness
—
something
that
I
am
not
prepared
to
ascribe
to
these
appellants.
The
argument
that
there
was
no
reasonable
expectation
of
profit,
although
mentioned
in
the
pleadings,
was
not
pursued
with
any
degree
of
vigour
by
counsel
for
the
respondent.
The
“no
reasonable
expectation
of
profit”
doctrine
has
no
application
to
a
carefully
researched
albeit
risky
business
venture
of
the
type
we
have
here.
This
is,
unfortunately,
an
example
of
a
case
where,
if
a
business
fails,
the
Minister,
with
20-20
hindsight,
ritually
intones
“no
reasonable
expectation
of
profit”,
but
if
the
same
business
succeeds
or
earns
money,
the
Minister
demands
his
share
of
the
profit.
The
appeals
are
allowed
and
the
assessments
are
referred
back
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment
in
accordance
with
these
reasons
and
with
the
document
filed
by
the
respondent
entitled
“Consent
to
Judgment”.
Counsel
requested
that
I
defer
issuing
judgment
until
they
have
had
an
opportunity
of
addressing
the
question
of
costs.
Counsel
are
invited
to
communicate
with
the
court
to
arrange
a
suitable
date
for
doing
so.
If
counsel
wish
the
matter
can
be
dealt
with
by
telephone
conference
call.
Appeals
allowed.
1999-11-1
1