Leslie J Hamilton v. Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 2164, 78 DTC 1114

The Assistant Chairman:—Mr Hamilton (sometimes hereinafter called “Hamilton” or the “appellant”) has appealed to this Board from an assessment for tax for the 1974 taxation year. The appellant duly filed his 1974 income tax return and the Minister of National Revenue, in due course, reassessed Mr Hamilton making about five. adjustments to his reported income which had the effect of substantially increasing his taxable income. Mr Hamilton objected and ultimately the reassessment was confirmed, which was followed by an appeal to this Board.

It is to be noted that the hearing of this appeal lasted some six days. Through no fault of anyone, two of those days were in October and two in November 1977, and the last two in the month of January 1978. Counsel are to be commended on the thoroughness of their preparation and their manner of presentation. I have been ably assisted by them, but in reality they have not made the decision I must make any easier.

When the appeal to this Board opened, the appellant’s counsel advised the Board that he was accepting two disallowances made by the Minister, namely, that pertaining to an item ‘‘automobile expenses” and “airline flights”, and secondly, that pertaining to “supplies” and “travelling expenses”. The two items, as well as the two items still in dispute between the parties, relate to the appellant’s business activity in the 1974 taxation year which he describes as a “commodity dealer”. The fifth item, which was in dispute when the appeal was called, involved transactions relating to shares. The appellant had claimed a trading loss in this respect of $2,790.63. The Minister was of the view that the loss was not a trading loss but rather a capital loss. The result was that the Minister disallowed that loss in its entirety, holding the same to be a capital loss. In computing the appellant’s total income for the year with respect to that loss, he allowed, as he put it, the maximum for the year—$1,000. When the hearing commenced, counsel for the Minister advised the Board that the respondent had reconsidered his position and that now, with respect to that one item, he accepted the appellant’s position and consented to the Board allowing the appeal in this respect so that the appellant is to be reassessed to delete the capital loss of $1,000 in its entirety and in its place and stead to allow the trading loss of $2,790.63 as claimed by the appellant. Consequently, in any event, the appeal will have to be allowed and the assessment remitted to the Minister to vary it to this extent. The total increase in the appellant’s income by the Minister was about $82,000. Of the total amount involved, the two acceptances and the one allowance only have a total effect of about $3,500, leaving about $79,000 still in issue.

As mentioned, when the appellant filed his 1974 income tax return, he described his business as that of a commodity dealer. As per that return, that business had a fiscal year ending March 31, 1974. While the business, according to Mr Hamilton, started around January 1, 1973, its first fiscal year, which had no revenue or profit or loss, ended at his election on March 31, 1973. There is no suggestion that the business continued in fact after mid-October 1973. As was explained in the evidence, the price of silver on the US commodity market started to rise in late 1972 and into 1973 to such an extent that, if “silver coins” were coins minted I believe before 1967, the coins as silver were worth more than their face value. In 1966 I believe the same thing happened, as a result of which a large number of countries—but not including Canada—reduced the silver content of their “silver” coins so that their value as a commodity was not equal to their face value as a coin. It was stated that this country reduced the silver content shortly after 1967 so that only 1967 or earlier coins were valuable as silver. It is to be appreciated that, if the coin’s value exceeds its face value, the increase is because of its silver content and, of course, to get the fine silver, one had to smelt the coins which was illegal in Canada pursuant to the Currency and Exchange Act, now RSC 1970, c C-39. I understand that in 1965 or thereabout the export of Canadian silver coins from Canada was prohibited under the Export and Imports Permits Act, now RSC 1970, c E-17. After a short period when the price of silver dropped—apparently around 1968 or so—that prohibition was removed and, as this story unfolds, there was initially no prohibition against the export of Canadian silver coins existing in 1972 or 1973.

While it was illegal in Canada to smelt Canadian silver coins, since presumably they were not legal. tender in the United States or there is no prohibition, the coins could be smelted in that country. The result was that, in the general area of Hamilton, Ontario (including Toronto, both of which are the locale for most of the facts in -this case), the value of the silver coins as a commodity was what they would bring on the New York market, less the cost of transportation, less a reasonable profit for the middleman or men.

The appellant, as mentioned, in early 1973 became interested in this business and started to dabble in it. He soon realized that unless one really got into it as a full-time business, it really was not worthwhile. There was no point in being, in effect, a collector who sold to a dealer who sold to the smelter; rather he should go into it on a big scale and become a dealer and sell to the smelter. As was to be expected, the dealers in the area—which included Buffalo and Niagara Falls, NY—would not say what they did with their silver coins. On his own, the appellant investigated and found out that Handy & Harman, with a refinery in Fairfield, Connecticut, was a key smelter in the silver business. He communicated with them and they advised him that they would accept his silver coins. He concluded that they only dealt in large quantities, while at this time he had only a few hundred dollars in silver.

At about this time (early 1973) the appellant had about $20,000 capital and decided to search for silver coins aggressively. In late March 1973 the coins were worth about $1.35 in New York for $1 face value, while in the Toronto area the coin’s value was about $1.30. In April a rumour was prevalent that an embargo on the export of silver coins was going to be imposed by the Canadian government. There was an immediate result: the value in Canada dropped as they could not be smelted down, and it would be against the law to export the coins and so the commodity value of the coins disappeared. At about this time, ads were appearing in various Canadian papers from persons who wished to buy silver coins. According to the appellant, he answered an ad which was in the Toronto Globe and Mail and he shortly thereafter received a phone call from a Sam Sloat who was a prominent American coin dealer. The two discussed over a period of four to six weeks (until apparently early in May 1973) schemes as to how to get around the Canadian embargo (when it was actually imposed I do not know, but the case proceeded on the basis that it was a rumour until about early May 1973, but that there was an embargo imposed shortly thereafter).

According to the appellant, the scheme ultimately resolved between the two parties was that the appellant would deliver bags of silver coins (eg one bag contained $1,000 face value in Canadian silver and weighed about 52 lbs) to the Sloat man in the parking lot of the Seaway Motel in Toronto and from him he would receive a bankdraft or an IOU apparently to the value of the coins delivered. A few days later Hamilton would drive to a service center outside of Newberg, NY (a city on the highway between Buffalo, NY and New York City which came to be called the “egg drop station’’). He would park in the parking lot as prearranged and in a short while a person would approach him and the appellant would deliver to him the IOU or the bankdraft and an amount per bag to the number that he had delivered at the Seaway Motel. He would then receive from that person the Same number of bags as he had delivered a few days previously in Toronto. Presumably each bag received contained Canadian silver coins to the face value of $1,000. From that point the appellant would go to Handy & Harman (or on a couple of occasions another smelter), deliver the coins for refining and in due course receive a bankdraft for the value of the mint silver. The drop of bags of coins was on Friday night in Toronto, usually after dark but in the early evening. If there were to be two drops (because of the number of bags involved) the place would remain the same but the time of the second drop would be arranged between the parties at the time of the first drop. The arrangements to make a drop on Friday was done by a phone call from Sloat to Hamilton on the preceding Tuesday. The appellant would leave Hamilton late Sunday afternoon, pick up the coins about 4 am, continue to Connecticut, deliver the coins and return home—a distance of about 1,100 miles. It was a continuous trip with no overnight stop.

When the appellant filed his income tax return for 1974, from the commodity dealer business he showed as sales the gross proceeds received from the refiners—about three quarters of a million dollars. Several categories of expenses were claimed, all of which totalled just less than the gross proceeds, producing a net profit as calculated by the appellant of just over $8,000. As mentioned, the Minister made four adjustments to those expenses, two of which were accepted by the appellant at the commencement of the hearing. As mentioned the appellant claimed that each time he picked up a bag of coins at Newberg, NY he paid the person from whom he received the bag a sum. The appellant stated that for the first few bags (around fifteen), the sum paid per bag was $60. For the balance of the bags picked up, the sum was $100. In addition, the appellant. stated that he purchased in the United States from a Hamilton man—John Noseworthy (about whom we will hear more later)—in the period June to August 1973 a total of 65 bags of Canadian silver coins and he also paid him, in addition to the Canadian figure for silver coins (which was considerably less than the US price for the same coins), $100. In total in this respect, as charges, he claimed to have paid $47,240. The Minister disallowed this sum in its entirety. Also, as previously mentioned, the value of the coins as silver exceeded their face value and, consequently, he had to pay to the vendor of the coins an amount as a premium. As indicated, it was clearly less than the amount he would have had to pay for the same coins in the United States as, in that country, the silver coins could be smelted. As premium the appellant claimed to have paid the sum of $160,515.50. The Minister accepted the position of the appellant that he did pay a premium at least for some coins, but he did not accept that the appellant paid premiums in the amount claimed. The premium claim accepted by the Minister was $128,411.50, with the effect that the reported profit from that business with respect to these two items was increased by about $80.000. The issue thus becomes: has the appellant established that some, if not all, of the $47,240 is a deductible expense and that the allowance of $128,411.50 should be increased by some, if not all, of the disallowed sum of $32,104?

To determine these two issues the evidence must be considered. The first matter to be considered is the person Sam Sloat and the things the appellant did as they pivot from him. Sloat, as stated by the appellant, was an American coin dealer from Westport, Connecticut who was collecting Canadian coins and was opening premises in Montreal to collect coins. The appellant is clear he never met Sloat, he never knew Sloat, and he never, to his Knowledge, saw Sloat. His only contact with him was by phone and all phone calls, while business was being conducted, were from Sloat io the appellant with one or two possible exceptions. As to identification, the appellant to Sloat was not Leslie James Hamilton or any variation of those three names or those three initials—he was known to Sloat only as Leslie James.

While the appellant made about 20 drops at the Seaway Motel in Toronto, and resultant pick-ups in Newberg, NY and deliveries to Handy & Harman or another smelter, all with one important exception (which will be mentioned hereinafter) were carried out in the same fashion. All drops by the appellant at the Seaway Motel in Toronto were, to all intents and purposes, the same. The car was loaded at his home in the dark. On most drops he went alone, however, on a couple of drops his brother, Ed, went with him. As stated the drops were on Friday evening (usually) after dark. On his last drop in October 1973, when he was to drop 20 bags, he could only leave 10 as the car he was then driving (a borrowed one) would only safely carry 10 bags, while his own car would have carried 20. His car had been in an accident that week and was in the garage at that time being repaired. At a drop, a person, Rene Laplante, would come to his car, give him an IOU or a draft for the face value of the coins (could be from about $5,000 to $30,000), the appellant would deliver the coins and leave. Neither the appellant (nor his brother) could describe Rene Laplante, nor his car, nor its licence, nor anything about him so that one could take steps to identify Rene Laplante. The appellant said he acted on trust. He was acting on trust with the voice—allegedly Sam Sloat, whom he had never met and whom he had never seen—to deliver, the first time at least, several bags of Canadian coins each having a face value of $1,000 to a voice which he heard in the Seaway Motel parking lot in Toronto asking for the arranged number of bags of coins. Laplante was not called to corroborate the appellant’s story. As to the picking up in the United States of the same number of bags as he delivered in Toronto, the appellant was to meet another voice in the dark at a service center outside of Newberg, NY on the New York State throughway on Monday morning. At least two people would go in one car and if there were two cars the second one was driven by his brother. Usually the certain Car was his, and he would be accompanied by his wife, or sometimes, I believe, by his brother Ed. The second car, if there were one used, was his brother Ed’s car, who would be with his wife. On one occasion, when about 55 bags were involved, a trailer was used. At the service center, in the dark, a voice would be heard (which was somehow identified only as “Eric”) and the appellant would hand over the same IOU or draft he had received from Rene Laplante on the previous Friday together with $100 per bag, and he would receive from Eric the same number of bags as he had delivered to Rene. The same applies to the vital statistics of Eric as applied to Rene: neither the appellant, his wife nor Ed Hamilton (his wife was not called as a witness) could describe him, give his name, his address, where he was from, describe his car or give its licence number, nor could anyone describe the service center as to type of gas sold—it was always the same center that was used. No one could say he saw the appellant pay Eric any money (for which he did not get a receipt as it was suggested “Eric” would not act this way as he did not wish to run afoul of the US tax laws) although Mrs Hamilton said she saw something like her husband counting money to give to Eric. She described Eric as being a shadow.

According to the appellant, all the drop charge money was not paid to Eric—some, as mentioned, was paid to John Noseworthy (hereinafter referred to as “Noseworthy”). Hamilton stated that Noseworthy sold to Hamilton, in the period June to August 1973, 61 bags of silver coins in the United States of America. Like Eric, Noseworthy was paid $100 per bag.

When the appellant made his last drop in October at the Seaway Motel, as he was short 10 bags, he arranged with Rene that they would both be at the same spot on the following Sunday at 8 pm. On Saturday he obtained. his own car from the garage and that day loaded it with the other 10 bags of coins to deliver to Rene. Mr and Mrs Hamilton’s wedding anniversary was on October 7 and Mr Hamilton had forgotten it. His wife was put out about this matter and let it be known to her spouse. To make amends, on Sunday they arranged, with two of their children (they had three),, to go to the Skyion at Niagara Falls to have dinner. Mrs Hamilton did not know the coins were in the car. She knew all about his business operation but, between the two, it was stipulated that there would be no coins in the car if the children were present. Between the couple this Sunday afternoon things were now fine, but a cloud appeared on the horizon as they approached the border. One daughter wished to go to Goat Island (in the United States) to get a present. The appellant tried to: discourage her and this upset once again Mrs Hamilton. He then walked with his daughter over the bridge to the island, leaving Mrs Hamilton and the other daughter on the Canadian side with the car. Where they were to meet on the Canadian side was arranged, but both parties were confused. In any event, he and his daughter returned some time later, however not by the same bridge, but rather the lower one, as a result of which he was somewhat late reaching the appointed place. His car was not to be seen so he walked across the bridge to the US Customs where he saw his car. He was informed it had been seized and he then returned to the-Canadian side where he was advised that his wife had taken a taxi to the bus depot. He went there immediately, and shortly thereafter left to go to Hamilton. There was no bus for some time and, while he had considerable money in his pocket, he hitchhiked as he had to get coins at home to deliver to Rene. He did not make it in time and he did not attempt the delivery. A few days later the RCMP, with a warrant, conducted a search at his home and found, I believe, a further 21 bags of silver coins.

The appellant acquired his Canadian silver coins from three sources: Charlton Numismatics Ltd, banks, and individuals. A few names were given of persons who sold coins to him, one of which was the said Noseworthy. He sold coins in Canada to the appellant. The quantum as to the amount sold varies—it could be $1,000 or even up to. $5,000

—while, according to Hamilton, he was buying all the time in relatively small quantities. Noseworthy gave evidence. Not only did he not corroborate what Hamilton had said; he clearly contradicted him. He stated that his car crossed the border six times at Hamilton’s request, with Hamilton’s coins in it. However, Noseworthy said he did not drive his car across or even accompany it on each occasion. He stated he helped load Hamilton’s car and Hamilton’s brother’s car, if used, with Hamilton’s coins in Hamilton, Ontario, on Sunday morning around 11 am and. not in the dark. After crossing the border the three met and the load was put in a car or a trailer as the case may be. Noseworthy said he never sold any of his Canadian silver coins to Hamilton in the United States. Considerable evidence was adduced in chief and by way of cross-examination as to detail, but really, as I view it, none of the inconsistencies or possible inaccuracies resolve who is relating the actual facts. Needless to say the appellant, his brother Ed and Mrs Hamilton contradict Noseworthy.

I should mention, according to the appellant, people invested in his venture. Investment was by way of a loan. The appellant needed money to buy coins (he had around $20,000 to start) so he would borrow and promise a return of say 3, 4 or 5% of the amount borrowed. On Friday he would deliver the coins purchased with the money borrowed earlier that, week. On Monday am he would deliver the coins to the smelter in Connecticut and from them—usually about Thursday—he would be paid. He would return the borrowed money plus the agreed rate at that time. Noseworthy so invested about $4,000 which to date has not been returned. Sometime after the appellant’s business stopped, Noseworthy told (and he admits he told) the appellant and another person that if the appellant didn’t pay he was going to the RCMP to incriminate him.

Another person involved in this drop charge was Sam Sloat. He gave evidence, having been requested to come by the Crown. Sloat said he did not know Hamilton under any name, never saw him, never dealt with him and, to his knowledge, never spoke to him. He continued that he had never been in Montreal or Toronto except for this visit. He was in the coin business and had never heard of anyone using his name and, if someone had, he believes he would have heard. Sloat stated he always used cheques for payment. The appellant stated, after hearing this evidence, that his voice was not the voice he spoke to as Sam Sloat.

I must decide whether or not I accept the case as submitted by Mr Hamilton and in parts corroborated by his wife and brother, but clearly contradicted by Noseworthy. To me I accept it all or reject it all. The other phase of the case relates to premiums paid by Mr Hamilton. It was clearly stated by him and his counsel that his figure of about $160,000 was an estimate and, after explaining how he arrived at his figure, the expression ‘‘an intelligent estimate” was used. I only know that for some time he said he was somewhat of an expert—Tie was: a traffic manager. I do not know what he did or what his education or training or experience was. He appeared alert in the witness-box and did not get excited during the proceedings although sometimes he was unsure as to detail. I found Mrs Hamilton to be vague with respect to Eric and the egg station. Mr Ed Hamilton, I believe, was vague and did not impress me as a strong witness. Noseworthy was and is, I believe, a clerk with the City of Hamilton Engineering Department. He did not impress me as being the alert man that I believe the appellant was. His memory failed on many occasions and his evidence was different at this trial in some respects from the evidence he gave at the charge against Mr Hamilton.

I should mention that the appellant did. not use his full name at all times. On occasion he used Leslie James—with Sam Sloat on the drafts he got from him for the coins in Canada. He. twice used the name James Cross. It was explained on one occasion as being funny. With Handy & Harman he used the name Bud Hamilton. I notice that after the seiure by the US Customs he went back home to get another 10 bags to deliver to Rene Laplante, however, no further evidence was given. What did Rene do? How long did he wait? Also, what about Eric at the service center. Did anyone tell him? On the following Tuesday, did Sam Sloat call? No mention was ever made and yet, if I conclude correctly, Rene has 10 bags of coins the appellant delivered to him on Friday night as no one ever said the appellant went to the service center to get them. To me great stress—I would say too great stress—was made of the friction between the appellant and his wife when he forgot their anniversary. It was essential though, as it gave the reason for him taking his daughter to Goat Island and his wife Subsequently driving over the border. Had the daughter not wanted to go and had he not initially refused, according to the appellant, the car would not have crossed the border. Hence the child’s desire, his refusal, the stress returns, and the event occurs as recounted.

The last drop at the Seaway Motel was 10 bags as he could not use his car. It had been in an accident and was in a garage. I think I can presume the garage operator charged him a fee for his services, yet the operator was not identified, nor was a receipt produced. Had his car not been in the garage on that Friday, there would have been— according to the appellant’s logic—no seizure on Sunday as, since he would nave delivered 20 bags on Friday, there would have been no bags in the car when his wife drove across the border.

I cannot see an intelligent man, as I believe the appellant is, going into this scheme on a basis of trusting a voice on the phone. According to his story he delivered, on about twenty occasions by his own admission, about $475,000 of silver coins face value (less what he says he bought from Noseworthy in the United. States, some $60,000) to an unidentified person—a person who, at any time, he could not identify. Consider the risks he took not only to his money but also to his life. The first few drops at the Seaway Motel he received an IOU. From whom, I was not told. Here is a man who wanted to get into this business (not be a middleman) to make money, yet, on the first drop alone, he was willing to throw away, on trust, coins with an actual value of maybe $7,000 together with the cost of acquisition of possibly another $6,000. To me, as I saw him, Mr Hamilton is too intelligent to do this. I must conclude that he did not pay any of the drop charges as the arrangement he said was made with a voice on the phone never existed.

I should point out that it could be that the seizure by the US Customs in October 1973 could have stopped the manner in which the appellant was getting his Canadian silver coins to the smelter in the United States. Since I find that he did not deliver to Rene, he never received an IOU or draft which he could exchange with Eric plus $100 per bag for an equal number of bags. Hence I reject the appellant’s position on this point.

The question remaining is the disallowance of premiums claimed to have been paid in the amount of $32,104. That the appellant bought coins and paid some premium is not disputed. However, the dispute is that he has not been allowed the amount claimed. The appellant’s position is that, as he had transactions in the period in question, he was in business and he wrote down in a ledger the quantum of the premium he paid—it was accurate. This ledger was kept up to date. It was in his office in his home when the RCMP conducted the search. They took, to all intents and purposes, everything in his office relating to his commodity business, including the ledger. The police (the two members of the force who conducted the search gave evidence) stated there was no such book seen or seized. The appellant referred to an inventory prepared by the police of the documents seized on the search and pointed out that there was a red book seized which was not listed. The police admitted that such was the case and, while not listing it might be an error on their part, it was not listed as there was nothing in the book—it was blank. The appellant counters that, firstly, there was one page in the book, in the first third he believed, which had some writing on it and, in addition, if they left off that book it clearly means they could leave off another.

Continuing with the appellant’s position, since his book was gone he had to reconstruct a book (Exhibit A-3) and it was an intelligent estimate of the premiums he paid. The Department, after the appellant filed his return, asked for a list of the persons from whom he bought coins, and the appellant’s only reply was something to the effect that, they had the Appeal Book. (He was charged and convicted and appealed to the Court of Appeal of Ontario. It is the Case on Appeal to which the appellant referred. I do not know with what offence the appellant was charged.) The Appeal Book supposedly has a list of at least some persons from whom he bought coins. The appellant Supplied no information. The Minister knowing (and the appellant admitting) that, in effect, no premium was paid on acquisition of coins from banks—and he did get coins from banks—and that premiums were shown on a total basis only and not individually, the Minister disallowed 20%. of the amount claimed. In Exhibit A-3, as I read the appellant’s entries, there were entries with respect to nineteen dates. In ten of those instances there were two acquisitions shown. One for each of those ten days was “Noseworthy”. No other name was ever shown. All other entries first show “bought”. I did not total the “premium” but it would appear to total the $162,000—the amount claimed. In every case a premium was shown and in every case, I believe, the rate of premium varied. The rate of premium shown opposite Noseworthy was appreciably higher than that opposite the other acquisitions.

According to the appellant he acquired coins having a face value of about $475,000. He stated he bought about 60% of those coins from Charlton Numismatics Ltd. If this were correct it would mean over $275,000 (face value). Mr Cross of Charlton, called by the appellant, suggested at first between $60,000 and $80,000 was sold by that firm to the appellant. He said later that the firm had been broken into about three times lately and records were missing and it could not be established what was sold to the appellant. He later said it could have been higher than the previous figure used. It would appear that coins worth around $300,000 face value at least were acquired by the appellant from other sources—individuals and banks. Reference was not made to any other firm. As to the banks, in the early stages of his business (March/April 1973) at one branch he got all their coins. He would give bag for bag. When he had a new bag he would sort it. On other occasions he would go and get all the coins a teller at a branch had. He said he went to about five banks and his wife went occasionally. He picked up from the James and Fennell branch of one bank in Hamilton until well into October. He went to many banks and even paid Brinks the bank’s freight charge.

Mr Cross stated the appellant paid a premium to his firm on purchases. Noseworthy said of the coins he sold to the appellant he was paid a premium, and William Russell who also sold coins to the appellant—not a great deal—was paid a premium. Assuming, but without deciding, the appellant did have a book showing entries he made with respect to all premiums he paid, would his position, without further evidence, be advanced? I believe not. It is a cash disbursement and there is no record from the payee that the payee received any premium. The appellant, in his notice of appeal to this Board (it appears to have been prepared by the appellant), makes no specific reference to the disallowance of the premiums although specific reference is made to other disallowances. The Minister’s reply to that appeal dated April 11, 1977 and stamped received by this Board April 25, 1977 refers inter alia to the premium disallowance and at paragraph 4(h) says as follows:

since the Appellant has been unable and/or unwilling to produce vouchers or receipts which would support his claims for business expenses for the 1974 taxation year, he has not shown that said expenses were incurred for thé purpose of gaining or producing income from his business.

The reply also contains the following paragraph:

6. The Respondent submits that since the Appellant has been unwilling and/or unable to produce vouchers or receipts for the business expenses which he sought to deduct for the 1974 taxation year, the amounts allowed to the Appellant as deductions on account of business expenses are fair and proper under the circumstances, and the Appellant has not shown that any expenses in excess of the amounts allowed, if incurred, which is not admitted, were incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from his business within the meaning of Paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, Chapter 63.

The Minister did not accept the intelligent estimate. The onus is on the taxpayer to show the Minister’s position is wrong. Were the facts different, I believe I could in the case accept the appellant’s position. However, it is clear that coins were acquired from banks at effectively no cost. As I read it, more than a few dollars worth of coins were involved. Assuming he bought one-third of the coins from Charlton, from where was the balance obtained? If one-third came from the banks, and while the evidence won’t produce a total of coins acquired (he was very active in that respect), then he did not pay any premium on about $150,000. In these circumstances I must say the onus is not satisfied.

The result is the appeal is to be allowed and the assessment remitted to the Minister for variation in accordance with the allowance made at the beginning of these reasons. In all other respects, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal allowed in part.