Date: 20000517
Docket: A-390-98
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NÖEL J.A.
BETWEEN:
PIERRE MAILLOUX
Appellant
- and -
REVENUE CANADA
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on Tuesday, May 16, 2000
Judgment delivered at Montréal, Québec, on Wednesday, May 17, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CONCURRING: DÉCARY J.A.
CONCURRING: NOËL J.A.
Date: 20000517
Docket: A-390-98
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
PIERRE MAILLOUX
Appellant
- and -
REVENUE CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.:
[1] Despite his commendable efforts, the appellant has not convinced us that Judge Archambault of the Tax Court of Canada erred in finding that the hay dryer, the acquisition cost of which the appellant claimed as a deduction, was a building in respect of which the capital expenditure was non-qualifying under subparagraph 37(7)(f)(i) of the Income Tax Act. This subparagraph reads as follows:
Sec. 37(7)(f)
(f) [Non-qualifying expenditures]. – notwithstanding paragraph (c), references to expenditures on or in respect of scientific research and experimental development shall not include
(i) any capital expenditure made in respect of the acquisition of a building, other than a prescribed special-purpose building, including a leasehold interest therein,
[2] According to the appellant's testimony, the hay dryer in question was a big, large, huge building. The appellant believed, mistakenly, that because it was an experimental prototype or, according to him, a pilot plant, this dryer ceased to be a building and that he could benefit from the scientific research and experimental development tax incentives, including the capital expenditure that subparagraph 37(7)(f)(i) excludes.
[3] In addition, the appellant claimed that because of its design and special scientific use, his hay dryer was a structure and not a building. However, the description in the evidence fully fits the dictionary definition of "building" in the everyday, ordinary sense of the word: "any construction intended to serve as shelter and protection" or "construction, generally of large dimensions, . . . used to accommodate humans, animals or things". Since the building in question does not come under the exception applicable for special-purpose buildings described in section 2903 of the Income Tax Regulations, the Tax Court of Canada Judge had no choice but to apply subparagraph 37(7)(f)(i) of the Act and to disallow the claimed expenditure.
[4] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
Gilles Létourneau
J.A.
"I concur." Robert Décary
J.A.
"I concur." Marc Noël
J.A.
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-390-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: PIERRE MAILLOUX
Appellant
- and -
REVENUE CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CONCURRING: DÉCARY J.A.
CONCURRING: NOËL J.A.
APPEARANCES: Pierre Mailloux
The appellant on his own behalf
Janie Payette
For the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Pierre Mailloux
10 315 St-Jean Boulevard
Trois-Rivières, Quebec
G9A 5E1
The appellant on his own behalf
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
For the respondent
Tax Court of Canada
Centennial Towers
200 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0M1
For the Tax Court
Date: 20000517
Docket: A-390-98
Montréal, Quebec, Wednesday, May 17, 2000
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NÖEL J.A.
BETWEEN:
PIERRE MAILLOUX
Appellant
- and -
REVENUE CANADA
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Robert Décary
J.A.
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
Email this Content