Desjardins
J.:
Despite
the
valiant
effort
of
counsel
for
the
appellant,
we
agree
with
the
interpretation
given
by
Bowen
J.T.C.C.
to
the
word
“used”
in
the
definition
of
“former
business
property
”
within
the
meaning
of
section
44
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
particularly
where
he
said
that
the
word
““use”
connotes
actual
utilization
for
some
purpose,
not
holding
for
future
use
”.
The
Tax
Court
Judge
encapsulated
his
reasoning,
with
which
we
agree,
as
follows:
[The
property]
was
intended
to
be
used,
it
was
waiting
to
be
used
but
in
any
meaningful
sense
of
the
term,
it
was
not
being
used.^
There
is
nothing
we
could
say
better
than
what
was
stated
by
him
in
his
analysis
This
appeal
will
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
[1999]
4
C.T.C.
Tax
Court
Decisions
Email this Content