D
E
Taylor
[Orally]:—This
is
an
appeal
of
Eric
W
Lewis
with
respect
to
his
1977
taxation
year.
The
essence
of
the
matter
is
contained
in
certain
statements
that
may
be
found
in
the
reply
to
notice
of
appeal
by
the
Minister.
The
appellant
acquired
a
parcel
of
land
on
October
17,
1967,
comprising
some
9.6
acres
in
the
Municipality
of
Central
Saanich
for
$33,000.
On
January
14,
1977,
he
(the
appellant)
sold
some
5.56
acres
of
the
said
parcel
of
land
for
$390,000.
In
his
income
tax
returns
for
1977
the
appellant
reported
an
allowable
capital
loss
of
$100
based
on
a
V-Day
value
of
$375,000
and
expenses
of
$15,200.
By
notice
of
reassessment
with
respect
to
the
sale
of
the
land
above
described,
the
Minister
ascribed
to
it
a
V-Day
value
of
$80,000.
The
appellant
testified
on
his
own
behalf,
and
a
Mr
Jackson,
a
qualified
real
estate
appraiser,
presented
his
report
and
gave
evidence.
His
V-Day
value
was
$416,000.
Mr
Southward,
an
appraiser
from
Revenue
Canada,
prepared
a
similar
but
conflicting
report,
arriving
at
a
V-Day
value
of
some
$68,000.
I
will
deal
with
the
appraisers’
reports
as
they
appear
to
me.
What
Mr
Jackson
says
in
essence
is
that
if
the
owner
of
this
subject
property
were
a
prudent
businessman
and,
even
more
importantly,
sufficiently
farsighted
tc
hold
the
subject
property
until
1977,
and
lose
some
$26,000
from
the
notional
value
of
the
property
of
$416,000
as
its
worth
was
estimated
to
be
by
Mr
Jackson
in
1971,
then
the
owner
would
have
held
it.
I
would
think
instead
of
being
a
prudent
businessman,
that
owner
if
he
did
so
would
indeed
be
an
imprudent
businessman.
By
any
reasonable
conclusion
he
would
have
sold
the
property
in
1971,
taken
his
$416,000
and
been
happy
to
do
so.
An
inescapable
conclusion
for
me
is
that
he
could
not
get
the
$416,000
estimated
value
of
Mr
Jackson
in
1971.
While
Mr
Jackson
admitted,
candidly
and
professionally,
that
he
had
difficulty
locating
good
comparables,
the
crucial
statement
in
his
appraisal
report
is
to
be
found
on
page
10
thereof,
and
I
quote:
Based
on
this
market
evidence
I
value
the
subject
at
$75,000
per
acre
as
it
stood
on
the
31st
day
of
December,
1971,
or
$675,000
for
the
whole
site.
While
that
statement
could
(I
do
not
say
would)
have
some
relevance
to
the
total
value
of
the
total
site
as
at
December
31,
1971,
including
improvements,
the
statement
loses
any
relevance
at
all
for
this
hearing
when
extended
to
and
then
limited
to
the
valuation
of
the
subject
property.
I
would
go
so
far
as
to
suggest
that,
rather
than
the
$75,000
estimate
per
acre
of
Mr
Jackson,
based
on
any
market
evidence
as
he
says,
there
is
little
if
any
market
evidence
therein
which
could
possibly
support
that
value,
and
very
likely
there
is
none
therein
on
which
to
support
any
value
at
all.
Without
going
into
details
I
would
suggest
that
several
of
the
critical
perspectives
upon
which
Mr
Jackson’s
conclusions
are
founded
are
subject
to
serious
question.
That
appraisal
report
is
not
accepted
by
the
Board
as
proof
of
the
appellant’s
assertions
at
this
appeal.
The
only
possible
other
evidence
which
has
been
presented
on
behalf
of
the
appellant
were
two
offers
to
purchase
relative
to
all
or
a
part
of
the
total
parcel
held
by
Mr
Lewis
in
1974,
not
1971
the
date
of
the
offers
to
purchase.
In
my
view,
these
offers
to
purchase
provide
him
no
help:
(a)
because
of
the
passage
of
three
years
between
V-Day
and
those
two
offers;
and
three
more
years
before
the
sale
of
the
subject
property;
(b)
because
these
offers
are
completely
vague,
and
at
least
one
is
related
to
the
sale
of
the
total
holding
and
not
just
the
subject
property.
It
is
not
at
all
clear
to
me
that
the
second
one
is
any
different,
notwithstanding
that
the
appellant
testified
that
it
only
related
to
a
part
of
it.
And
(c)
in
any
event,
the
conditions
and
qualifications
regarding
use,
permits,
approvals,
etc,
contained
in
the
offers,
totally
invalidate
them
for
any
positive
perspective
before
the
Board.
With
regard
to
the
price
paid
in
1969
by
the
Municipality
for
an
expropriation
of
a
small
sliver
of
adjacent
property
from
the
front
of
the
total
holdings
of
the
appellant,
my
view
is
that
is
not
relevant
since
a
part
of
the
price
paid
by
the
Municipality
was
for
improvements,
and
there
have
been
considéra
ble
discussions
about
the
lawns,
the
pavement,
curbings,
etc.
As
I
see
it,
the
Municipality
was
totally
disinterested
in
buying
lawns
or
pavement
or
curbing.
In
any
event
the
Municipality
would
be
required
to
get
rid
of
these
in
any
program
for
the
improvement
of
the
highway.
In
summary,
while
it
may
well
be
true
that
the
Minister’s
amount
for
assessment
of
$80,000
for
the
subject
property
has
weaknesses
in
it
when
related
back
to
Mr
Southward’s
report,
that
is
not
the
problem
before
the
Board.
As
I
see
it,
the
appellant
has
failed
to
establish
even
a
prima
facie
case
for
the
valuation
he
used
in
filing
his
tax
return
for
the
year
of
$375,000,
and
certainly
not
for
the
$416,000
estimate
suggested
by
his
appraiser,
or
any
figure
remotely
approaching
either
one
of
them.
Perhaps
no
real
comparisons
could
be
made
by
Mr
Jackson
because
of
the
lack
of
sales
which
he
considered
acceptable.
But
again
that
is
not
the
problem
before
the
Board.
It
only
results
in
the
fact
that
no
detailed
review
of
the
Minister’s
valuation
is
required
for
the
Board
to
make
a
determination
of
this
issue.
I
do
point
out,
however,
that
Mr
Southward’s-valuation
appeared
complete
and
his
explanations
were
informative.
On
a
review
of
the
evidence
and
testimony
as
I
see
them,
in
my
opinion
the
appeal
must
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content