Docket: A-261-13
Citation:
2014 FCA 227
|
CORAM:
|
NADON J.A.
GAUTHIER J.A.
SCOTT J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
|
MOHAMMED TIBILLA
|
|
|
Appellant
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on October 8, 2014).
NADON J.A.
[1]
The Tax Court dismissed the appellant’s appeals
from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1,
(5th Supp.) of his 2007 and 2008 taxation years.
[2]
Two issues were before Madam Justice Lamarre
(the judge). The first one consisted in determining the year in which the
appellant’s capital gain should be declared following the disposition of a
rental property which he acquired in 2002.
[3]
The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded
that the sale had occurred in December 2007. In so concluding, she considered
the appellant’s version of the events in which he asserted that because, at the
time of the sale, he and the purchaser had a dispute regarding the purchase
price, which was only settled in March 2008, it was open to him to treat the
disposition as having occurred in 2008.
[4]
The judge also considered the fact that the sale
had occurred by way of a deed of sale before a notary on December 18, 2007 and
that in the deed, the appellant, as vendor, had acknowledged having received
the purchase price of $285,000 from the purchaser and in respect of which he
gave a complete discharge.
[5]
She also gave consideration to the appellant’s
testimony to the effect that he had received advice from someone at the Canada
Revenue Agency (CRA) that he could include his income in the 2008 taxation
year.
[6]
After proper consideration, she concluded that
the capital gain had to be declared in 2007.
[7]
We have not been persuaded that the judge made
any error in concluding as she did on this issue.
[8]
The second issue which the judge had to
determine is the amount of capital gain made by the appellant as a result of
the sale of his property. More particularly, the appellant claimed that an
amount of $52,810 had to be added to the adjusted cost base of his property so as
to reduce his capital gain. The CRA refused the addition.
[9]
Again the judge carefully considered the
evidence, including the appellant’s testimony that he had effected repairs to
the property in 2002, prior to his purchase thereof, with the consent of the
previous owner.
[10]
She also considered the appellant’s evidence
that he had lost all of his supporting vouchers and documents in 2008 as a
result of a flood in the basement of the house he was living in at the time.
[11]
The judge also noted the appellant’s testimony
to the effect that he had filed, with his 2000 income tax return, copies of
these vouchers and documents.
[12]
In the end, the judge found it difficult to
believe the appellant’s explanations and she indicated in her reasons why this
was so. While we do not doubt that it is possible that the appellant did file
the documents which he says he filed in 2002 with his income tax return, it was
open to the judge, on the evidence before her, to disregard the appellant’s
testimony.
[13]
Hence, the judge held that the appellant was not
entitled to add the expenses of $52,810 to his adjusted cost base.
[14]
We have also not been persuaded that this
conclusion by the judge is an error. With respect to the appellant’s arguments
concerning the proper application of section 230 of the Income Tax Act,
we are also of the view that the judge made no error.
[15]
While we are sympathetic to the appellant’s
plight, we have no choice, in the circumstances of this case, but to dismiss
his appeal. There shall be no costs granted to the respondent.
“M. Nadon”
Email this Content