Hugessen,
J.A.:—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
Cullen,
J.
([1988]
2
C.T.C.
213;
88
D.T.C.
6410).
The
only
issue
is
with
respect
to
the
scope
of
an
election
made
by
the
taxpayer
under
section
85
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act")
at
the
time
of
filing
his
return
for
the
1975
taxation
year.
The
trial
judge
held
that
the
Minister,
who
had
based
himself
on
the
election
itself
as
well
as
on
certain
additional
information
furnished
by
the
taxpayer's
accountants
a
few
months
later,
was
correct
in
limiting
the
scope
of
the
election
to
certain
properties
which
the
taxpayer
had
owned
on
December
31,
1971,
and
in
not
including
certain
other
properties
acquired
between
that
date
and
the
date
of
the
election.
We
are
satisfied
that
the
trial
judge
arrived
at
the
correct
conclusion
and
are
in
general
agreement
with
his
reasons.
An
election
by
a
taxpayer
under
section
85
must
be
made
in
such
a
way
that
it
is
possible
to
determine
in
respect
of
which
property
it
is
made.
It
is
not
enough
for
a
taxpayer
simply
to
intend
to
elect
in
respect
of
a
given
property;
he
must
actually
do
so.
In
the
present
case,
the
election
was
in
the
most
general
terms
imaginable,
speaking
only
of
"Land"
and
of
“Building”
with
no
further
description.
An
analysis
of
the
figures
given
in
the
election
form
shows
that
only
the
properties
owned
by
the
taxpayer
as
at
December
31,
1971
were
in
fact
included.
When,
at
the
Minister’s
request,
further
details
were
furnished
by
the
taxpayer's
accountant,
they
still
did
not
include
all
the
properties
which
the
taxpayer
now
says
he
intended
to
include
in
the
election.
In
fact,
the
alleged
intention
to
include
those
properties
was
only
disclosed
to
the
Minister
with
the
filing
of
the
amended
statement
of
claim
in
the
Trial
Division,
almost
nine
years
later.
In
those
circumstances,
it
is
impossible
for
the
taxpayer
to
say
that
the
Minister
was
wrong
to
assess
him
on
the
basis
of
the
election
actually
made.
The
appeal
will
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.