Date: 20010831
Docket: 1999-1851-IT-G
BETWEEN:
CLIFFORD JAMES SAVAGE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent,
AND
Docket: 1999-1852-IT-G
BETWEEN:
DARYL SAVAGE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasonsfor
Judgment
(Delivered orally from the bench in Prince
Albert, Saskatchewan, on August 31, 2001)
Bowman, A.C.J.
[1] I
shall render judgment today in the cases of Clifford James Savage
and Daryl Savage v. Her Majesty The Queen. These appeals, which
are from income tax assessments for the 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1997
of Clifford James Savage and for the 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996 and
1997 taxation years of Daryl Savage were heard together on common
evidence. A large number of issues are raised. I shall begin by
dealing with the issues that have been disposed of by the parties
on consent.
[2]
The appellants are father and son carrying on business in
Saskatchewan as farmers. The issues are, broadly speaking,
these:
(a)
the extent of business use of certain motor vehicles;
(b)
the entitlement of the appellants to CCA on certain farm
equipment; and
(c)
the entitlement of the appellants to input tax credits on the
purchase of farm equipment.
[3]
The parties have consented to a disposition of some of the issues
raised in the notices of appeal and replies as follows: the
appeals will be allowed on the following basis:
(a)
It is agreed Daryl Savage will be entitled to claim 70% of the
cost of the use of two half ton trucks referred to in
paragraph 7i)b) of the reply to the notice of appeal, as
opposed to 60%, as allowed on assessment.
Clifford James Savage concedes the Crown's position with
respect to the business use of the Oldsmobile Delta 88 referred
to in paragraph 6i)b) of the reply.
(b)
The respondent concedes that there should be deleted from Daryl
Savage's income the amounts of $29,000 and $5,959 referred to
in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the reply to the notice of appeal
as shareholder benefits under subsection 15(1) of the
Income Tax Act.
(c)
The respondent concedes with respect to both Daryl and Clifford
James Savage the capital cost of a John Deere 4560 tractor,
S.N. 1570, referred to in paragraph 11 of the reply to
the notice of appeal in the appeals of Daryl Savage and
paragraph 10 in the appeals of Clifford James Savage, was
$105,000, rather than $85,686 assumed on assessing, and that the
consideration for that tractor included the transfer of a John
Deere 4555 tractor, S.N. P002427, with the fair market value of
$82,500 rather than $52,686.
(d)
The parties agree that the John Deere 4560 tractor, S.N. 1570,
was acquired and available for use on December the 11th, 1992,
and that the two combines, Ford New Holland TX36, S.N. 8607025
and TX36, S.N. 8610055 were acquired and available for use in
1993, and the Versatile 976 tractor, S.N. 485260 was acquired and
available for use on June 26th, 1993.
(e)
The parties agree that all of the properties in issue were
acquired pursuant to binding agreements entered into at a time
which entitled them to claim an input tax credit in respect
thereof.
[4] I
turn now to the remaining issues in respect to which there is no
agreement; namely, the capital cost to the appellants of two
combines and one tractor for the purposes of tax credits.
[5]
Broadly, the problem is this: when these pieces of farm equipment
were acquired, there would be as part of the price a trade-in of
a similar piece of equipment acquired by the appellants in an
earlier year. The value of this trade-in would be negotiated
between the parties who were at arm's length.
[6]
In filing their income tax returns, the appellants treated the
contract price, that is to say, the list price, as the cost of
the equipment for the purposes of the input tax credit and for
the purposes of claiming CCA and the negotiated trade-in value of
the used equipment as forming part of the consideration.
[7]
Subsection 13(33) of the Income Tax Act reads as
follows.
For greater certainty, where a person acquires a depreciable
property for consideration that can reasonably be considered to
include a transfer of property, the portion of the cost to the
person of the depreciable property attributable to the transfer
shall not exceed the fair market value of the transferred
property.
[8]
This was enacted evidently following the decision of this court
in Zeiben v. Minister of National Revenue, [1991]
2 C.T.C. 2008. Whether that provision was really
necessary is a matter upon which I do not consider it necessary
to comment.
[9]
The Minister took the position that the fair market value was
less than that negotiated by the parties, and the difference in
the result was as follows. I am going to read from the reply to
the notice of appeal of Daryl Savage, but the same figures apply
of course to Clifford James Savage. I am reading from
subparagraph 3b), c) and d) of the reply of Daryl
Savage's notice of appeal.
b)
Ford New Holland Combine TX36, S.N. 8607025
i)
in 1992, the Appellant and his father filed their 1992 tax
returns on the basis that they had acquired a TR96 Combine TX36,
S.N. 8607025 at a cost of $190,000.00 and claimed ITC and CCA
accordingly;
ii)
the Appellant and his father had calculated their cost of
$190,000.00 based on:
Cash payment
(1993)
$2,500.00
Cash payment
(1992)
$13,000.00
Trade-in value of TX36, S.N.
8607055
$174,500.00
Total
$190,000.00
iii)
the Minister reassessed by deleting the tax effects of the
transaction from 1992 and adding them, instead, to 1993;
iv)
the Minister reassessed on the basis of the cost to the Appellant
and his father on the TR36, S.N. 8607025 was $149,681.00
calculated a follows:
Value of the TX36,
S.N. 8607055 net of
ITC
$134,181.00
Cash
paid
$15,500.00
Total
$149,681.00
and adjusted CCA and ITC accordingly;
v)
the Appellant's percentage of ownership of the Ford New
Holland TR36, S.N. 8607025 was 36.84%;
c)
Ford New Holland combine TX36, S.N. 8610052
i)
the Appellant and his father filed their 1993 tax returns on the
basis that they acquired a Ford New Holland Combine TX36, S.N.
8610052 at a cost of $193,200.00 calculated as follows:
Cash
$12,000.00
Value of trade - TX36, S.N.
8607025
$180,700.00
Total
$192,700.00
The reason for the $500 difference between $193,200 and $192,700
was not explained to the Minister.
[I note parenthetically it was not explained to me
either.]
ii)
The Minister reassessed the Appellant by calculating the cost of
the Ford New Holland combine TX36, S.N. 8610052 as follows:
Value of trade S.N.
8607025
$149,681.00
Cash
$12,000.00
< ITC
claimed >
< $14,968.00 >
[Those are with, I don't know what you call those marks,
but I take it they indicate a negative amount.]
$146,713.00
and adjusted CCA and ITC accordingly;
iii)
the Appellant's percentage of ownership of the Ford New
Holland Combine TX36, S.N. 8610052 was 40.48%;
d)
Versatile 976 Tractor, S.N. 485260
i)
the Appellant and his father filed their 1993 returns on the
basis that they had acquired a Versatile 976 Tractor, S.N. 485260
at a cost of $150,000.00 calculated as follows:
Value of the Versatile 946 Tractor,
S.N.
D475781
$125,000.00
Cash
paid
$25,000.00
Total
$150,000.00
ii)
the Minister reassessed on the basis that the cost of the
Versatile 976 tractor, S.N. 485260 was $112,977.00 calculated as
follows:
Value of the Versatile 946, S.N.
D475781
$87,977.00
Cash
$25,000.00
$112,977.00
and adjusted the CCA and ITC accordingly;
iii)
the Appellant's percentage of ownership interest in the
Versatile 976 Tractor, S.N. 485260 was 30%.
[10] The
difference of course lies in the fair market value of the
equipment that was traded in as part of the purchase price. The
respondent called no witnesses, but relied solely upon the
figures set out in the Western Canada Trade Guide which contains
guidelines for the valuation of used equipment.
[11] The
appellants called Mr. Cook, the president of Farm World
Equipment Ltd., the world's largest Ford New Holland dealer.
He has had 35 years experience in trading in farm equipment. He
testified that he had sold Mr. Savage the equipment in
question and had also sold him the year before the equipment that
was traded in. He and Mr. Clifford Savage both described the
negotiations; they were tough and arm's length.
[12] In
Western Securities Limited v. The Queen,
97 DTC 977, I set out what I believed to be the
characteristics of a hypothetical informed vendor and purchaser
for the purposes of determining fair market value as follows at
page 978:
Essentially, the determination of fair market value involves
the conjuring up of a hypothetical seller and a hypothetical
buyer, operating in an unrestricted market. Neither of these
persons must be under any compulsion to make a deal, but we must
assume that they both want to do so and we must also assume that
they do in fact do so. They must both be of equal financial
strength. They are honest, but cagey, knowledgeable, tough,
experienced, smart and hard-nosed, with their eye on the
commercial main chance, their feet firmly planted on the bedrock
of economic reality and their cards close to their vests. An
encounter between these hypothetical titans of the negotiating
table would, I should think, be a combat of truly Homeric
proportions. The only thing they lack is the hindsight that
subsequent valuators have but in general may not use except
perhaps as a test of the reasonableness of the assumptions as to
future use. All I have to do is decide what deal they would
strike. Unfortunately, encounters between two such equally
matched hypothetical negotiators seldom occur in the real
world.
[13] I never
thought I would meet such people, but I was wrong. These two
tough old birds are the archetypes of a knowledgeable vendor and
purchaser, and I mean that in a complimentary sense. I am
prepared to accept the figures negotiated by the parties with
respect to the trade-in value because it comes as close as is
possible to the price that two knowledgeable persons would
negotiate.
[14] I do this
for several reasons. The price in the Western Canada Trade Guide
is unreliable, according to Mr. Cook. In 1993 and 1994, the
publishers of that guide had little experience with respect to
the Ford New Holland TX36 combines. Even today with eight years
experience, the guide assigns values to eight-year-old combines
with 1,740 hours use that are not significantly lower than the
price assigned by the CCRA to one-year-old combines with less
than 200 hours of use.
[15] Mr. Cook
testified that the used equipment that the Savages traded in was
in mint condition. Mr. Cook testified that the prices he
negotiated were based upon what he thought he could sell the
equipment for. Sometimes he was wrong; sometimes he got more when
he sold; sometimes he got less. If the equipment stayed in
inventory for a year, the price decreased or he would sell it for
less to stop interest from accruing.
[16] In my
view the appellants have made out a strong prima facie
case that the negotiated price is the best indication of fair
market value, and that the guide relied upon by the respondent is
unreliable as a means of determining fair market value.
[17] As Madam
Justice L'Heureux-Dubé said in Hickman Motors Ltd.
v. Canada, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 336, at
paragraphs 92 to 95:
92
The Minister, in making assessments, proceeds on assumptions
(Bayridge Estates Ltd. v. M.N.R., 59 D.T.C. 1098
(Ex. Ct.), at p. 1101) and the initial onus is on the taxpayer to
"demolish" the Minister's assumptions in the
assessment (Johnston v. Minister of National Revenue,
[1948] S.C.R. 486) ... The initial burden is only to
"demolish" the exact assumptions made by
the Minister, but no more. ...
93
The initial onus of "demolishing" the Minister's
exact assumptions is met where the appellant makes
out at least a prima facie case. ... The law
is settled that unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence
"demolishes" the Minister's assumptions. ...
94
Where the Minister's assumptions have been
"demolished" by the appellant, "the onus ...
shifts to the Minister to rebut the prima facie
case" made out by the appellant and to prove the
assumptions. ...
95
Where the burden has shifted to the Minister, and the Minister
adduces no evidence whatsoever, the taxpayer is entitled to
succeed. ...
[18] I will
not cite anything more of that case. That prima facie case
has been amply made out, and we have nothing to rebut it.
[19] Two final
points should be emphasized. There is no suggestion that the
negotiated trade-in values or the selling price of the equipment
were inflated or manipulated. They were negotiated honestly and
in good faith between arm's length persons. I was favourably
impressed by all three witnesses called by the appellants. These
were honest, credible people.
[20] Finally I
should comment on the so-called "washout price". This
is basically a figure arrived at by Farm World Equipment Ltd.
after all of the trades related to a particular transaction have
been completed, and we have nothing left but cash.
[21] For
example, a farmer wishes to buy Equipment A. He pays some
cash and trades in Equipment B. The dealer sells
Equipment B for part cash and part trade-in of
Equipment C. He sells Equipment C for cash and a
trade-in of Equipment D, and so on, until only cash is paid
and we have run out of trade-ins.
[22] The
"washout" is an aggregate of the cash components in all
of the transactions. I do not regard the washout price as a
reliable means of determining the fair market value of a piece of
equipment that is traded in. For one thing, it may take years for
the series of trades to be completed before the figures can be
ascertained. It is subject to altogether too many variables to
allow it to be used as a satisfactory method of determining
value.
[23] Numerous
parties are involved in the series of transactions and the
determination of fair market value at a point in time that is
made dependent upon events and economic conditions that may not
occur until years later.
[24] The
appeals are allowed and the assessments are referred back to the
Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and
reassessment:
(a)
to give effect to the agreement between the parties referred to
at the beginning of these reasons;
(b)
to determine capital cost allowance and investment tax credits to
which the appellants are entitled in respect of the Ford New
Holland combine TX36, S.N. 8607025, Ford New Holland Combine
TX36, S.N. 8610055, and the Versatile 976 Tractor, S.N. 485260 on
the basis that the trade-in value of the used machinery which the
appellants traded in on the purchase of that equipment is the
value negotiated by them with Farm World Equipment Ltd.; that is
to say, $174,500, $180,700 and $125,000 respectively, so that the
cost to them of the two combines and the tractor is $190,000,
$192,000 and $150,000 respectively.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 7th day of November 2001.
"D.G.H. Bowman"
A.C.J.
COURT FILE
NOS.:
1999-1851(IT)G, 1999-1852(IT)G
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Between Clifford James Savage and
Her Majesty The Queen AND
Between Daryl Savage and
Her Majesty The Queen
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan
DATE OF
HEARING:
August 30, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BY:
The Honourable D.G.H. Bowman
Associate Chief Judge
DATE OF ORAL
JUDGMENT:
August 31, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the
Appellants:
Grant Carson, Esq.
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Karen Janke
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the
Appellants:
Name:
Grant Carson, Esq.
Firm:
Carson & Co.
Melfort, Saskatchewan
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
Email this Content