The
Chairman
[TRANSLATION]:—This
is
an
appeal
by
Mr
Raymond
Potvin
from
an
assessment
for
the
1976
taxation
year.
The
question
is
whether
an
amount
of
$11,343.20
is
income
for
Mr
Potvin
or
whether
this
amount,
derived
from
the
sale
of
land,
should
be
regarded
as
a
capital
gain.
The
Board
has
had
many
cases
dealing
with
this
matter,
and
most
of
them
turn
primarily
on
the
intent
of
the
taxpayer
in
buying
the
land.
In
the
case
at
bar
the
evidence
is
that,
Mr
Potvin
stated,
that
he
built
a
house
in,
I
think,
1974,
on
four
or
five
acres
of
land,
and
subsequently
bought
the
balance
of
a
parcel
of
land
of
a
hundred
acres.
I
can
appreciate
that,
to
Mr
Potvin,
the
purchase
of
a
hundred
acres
of
land
for
$10,000
represented
a
bargain.
It
is
also
possible
that
Mr
Potvin
contemplated
the
sale
of
certain
lots
along
the
road
in
order
to
defray
certain
expenditures,
but
the
fact
remains
that
Mr
Potvin’s
original
intent
was
to
sell
lots
to
defray
his
costs.
Even
if
we
take
into
consideration
a
second
intent
which
Mr
Potvin
may
have
had,
it
must
be
concluded
that
this
land
was,
as
he
called
it,
a
pension
fund
for
his
future.
When
he
was
questioned
as
to
the
type
of
pension
fund
he
was
seeking—
I
asked
the
question—namely,
whether
he
intended
to
build
houses,
rent
the
houses
and
earn
an
income
in
that
manner—this
might
perhaps
have
been
regarded
as
a
long-term
investment—but
he
stated
that
this
was
not
his
intention.
What
he
wanted
was
to
be
able
to
earn
an
income
from
the
sale
of
lots.
Contrary
to
what
counsel
for
the
appellant
suggested
in
his
argument,
it
was
Clearly
Mr
Potvin’s
intent
to
sell
lots,
perhaps
as
a
source
of
income
somewhat
further
down
the
line.
Circumstances
dictated
that
he
should
sell
the
lots
more
rapidly,
but
that
had
nothing
to
do,
that
changed
nothing
with
respect
to
his
original
intent.
The
question
of
whether
the
lots
were
subdivided
in
stages
or
altogether
does
not
greatly
alter
the
situation.
What
seems
to
be
clear
in
this
appeal
is
Mr
Potvin’s
intent
to
purchase
for
sale,
and
the
facts
demonstrate
that
he
carried
out
his
intent
and
did
in
fact
sell
the
lots
in
question.
I
would
readily
agree
that
Mr
Potvin
cannot
be
regarded
as
a
large
developer
or
a
major
entrepreneur,
but
the
fact
remains
that
there
was
a
road
on
which
nine
houses
had
been
built,
and
it
was
clearly
Mr
Potvin’s
intention
to
do
this.
Taking
into
account
the
distinction
that
may
exist
between
a
capital
gain
and
a
profit,
resulting
from
the
sale
of
lots,
it
necessarily
follows
that
the
profits
realized
from
the
sale
of
these
lots
were
income.
The
Department
did
not
err
in
adding
this
profit
to
the
appellant’s
income.
For
this
reason,
I
am
obliged
to
dismiss
the
appeal.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content