D
E
Taylor
[ORALLY]:—This
is
an
appeal
heard
in
Charlottetown,
PEI
on
July
6,
1982
with
respect
to
the
1979
taxation
year.
The
matter
at
issue
is
the
gain
on
the
sale
of
two
lots
in
Highland
View
Park,
and
the
amount
at
issue
is
a
total
of
$8,184.
I
would
read
from
the
notice
of
appeal,
prepared
by
the
agent
for
the
appellant.
“Over
the
years
Mr
Lovering
purchased
numerous
parcels
of
land
to
hold
as
investments.
It
was
his
hope
that
the
investment
would
appreciate
in
value
at
a
rate
greater
than
any
investment
in
the
stock
market,
etc.”
It
obviously
is
the
view
of
both
the
appellant
and
his
agent
that
the
acquisition
of
land,
vacant
land,
or
any
other
asset,
merely
held
to
realize
on
the
appreciation
in
value,
but
for
the
purpose
of
selling
it,
gives
that
asset
the
characteristics
of
investment
in
all
instances.
Nothing
could
be
further
from
the
truth.
The
appellant
prejudiced
his
own
appeal
by
his
comments
relating
to
the
point
in
time
when
he
sold
the
property
and
the
reason
for
that
sale
—
I
quote:
“reaching
my
investment
objective,
they
had
appreciated
in
value
rapidly”.
The
intrinsic
characteristic
of
“income”
or
“capital”
does
not
depend
solely
on
the
nature
of
the
asset
involved
for
income
tax
purposes;
the
purpose
of
acquisition,
the
use
during
ownership,
and
the
reasons
for
disposition
are
equally,
if
not
more
relevant
to
any
such
determination.
The
fact
that
it
was
somewhat
improved
land
has
no
bearing
on
the
matter
in
this
appeal.
The
appellant
had
only
one
continuous
purpose
in
mind
—
to
buy
the
land,
to
hold
it,
and
to
sell
it
at
a
profit.
That
is
the
purest
definition
of
trading
that
anyone
can
want.
You
buy
and
you
sell
and
you
make
money.
In
addition
to
the
Grossman
case
which
was
quoted
by
counsel
for
the
respondent,
I
would
make
reference
to
the
case
of
Chin
et
al
v
MNR,
which
is
to
be
found
at
[1980]
CTC
2296;
80
DTC
1246,
a
case
in
which
the
Board
dealt
with
precisely
that
issue
.
.
.
and
I
quote
from
2299
[1249]:
It
would
appear
that
this
taxpayer
assumed
that
since
he
had
no
intention
of
immediately
disposing
of
the
property,
and
wished
to
retain
it
as
long
as
possible
to
benefit
from
the
future
increased
value
he
anticipated,
these
factors
either
established
vacant
land
as
an
investment
(and
therefore
capital
property),
or
preserved
its
Original
integrity
as
such.
As
I
have
indicated
earlier,
it
makes
no
difference
that
it
was
vacant
land
in
that
case
(Chin
(supra)).
The
appellant
in
this
instance
purchased
land
with
the
sole
and
single
purpose
of
selling
it
at
an
appropriate
time,
when
he
was
offered
sufficient
money
to
make
his
acquisition
thereof
profitable
—
he
accomplished
that.
The
profit
is
on
income
account.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content