Pratte,
J:—Plaintiff
is
appealing
from
an
assessment,
dated
May
9,
1972,
determining
the
amount
of
income
tax
payable
by
it
for
the
year
1970.
In
making
this
assessment
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
considered
that
the
mobile
cranes
owned
by
plaintiff
should
be
placed
in
Class
10
of
Schedule
B
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations,
and
accordingly
that
plaintiff
was
entitled
to
deduct
30%
of
the
capital
cost
of
these
items
from
its
income.
Plaintiff
claims
to
be
entitled
to
deduct
from
its
income
50%
of
the
cost
of
this
machinery,
which
it
submits
should
be
placed
in
Class
22
of
Schedule
B.
The
appeal
therefore
raises
one
question
only,
as
to
whether
these
mobile
cranes
should
be
placed
in
Class
10
or
Class
22
of
Schedule
B.
At
the
hearing
plaintiff
submitted
as
Exhibit
P-2
a
list
of
the
mobile
cranes
owned
by
it
in
1970.
It
admitted
that
the
three
cranes
mentioned
at
the
beginning
of
this
list
should
be
placed
in
Class
10.
The
case
is
therefore
concerned
only
with
the
manner
in
which
the
other
cranes
mentioned
in
Exhibit
P-2
should
be
classified.
Under
Schedule
B
the
items
falling
within
Class
10
are:
(h)
contractor’s
movable
equipment
(including
portable
camp
buildings),
other
than
a
property
included
in
class
22,
Class
22
includes:
Property
acquired
after
March
16,
1964,
that
is
power-operated
moveable
equipment
designed
for
the
purpose
of
excavating,
moving,
placing
or
compacting
earth,
rock,
concrete
or
asphalt,
but
not
including
a
property
that
is
included
in
class
7.
It
is
established
that
plaintiff’s
cranes
are
mobile,
that
they
are
power-
operated
and
that
they
were
acquired
after
March
16,
1964.
Defendant
contends,
however,
that
they
were
not
intended
for
the
uses
referred
to
in
Class
22.
The
evidence
indicated
that
although
plaintiff’s
mobile
cranes
are
primarily
lifting
machinery,
they
were
sold
with
accessories
enabling
them
to
be
used
for
other
purposes,
including
excavation.
Defendant
does
not
dispute
that
plaintiff
uses
its
cranes
regularly
for
the
purposes
mentioned
in
Class
22.
However,
she
argues
that
the
cranes
were
designed
for
lifting,
and
the
fact
that
they
might
be
used
for
other
work
does
not
change
their
intended
use.
Plaintiff
does
not
deny
that
its
cranes
are
lifting
machinery,
but
maintains
that
they
were
also
designed
to
perform
many
of
the
tasks
referred
to
in
Class
22.
As
the
wording
of
Schedule
B
does
not
require
that
property
in
Class
22
be
intended
exclusively
for
the
purposes
mentioned,
plaintiff
concludes
that
its
cranes
should
be
placed
in
this
class.
In
my
view
plaintiff
is
correct.
A
piece
of
machinery
may
be
intended
for
several
uses.
This
is
true
of
plaintiff’s
cranes,
which
are
sold
with
accessories
enabling
them
to
be
used
interchangeably
as
excavators
and
as
lifting
and
handling
machinery.
When
one
of
plaintiff’s
cranes
has
on
it
the
required
accessory
equipment
to
be
used
for
excavation,
I
think
it
must
be
regarded
as
machinery
“designed
for
the
purpose
of
excavating
..
.”;
and
the
fact
that
with
other
accessory
equipment
the
machine
can
perform
other
tasks
in
no
way
changes
this.
It
is
my
opinion,
therefore,
that
plaintiff’s
mobile
cranes
should
have
been
placed
in
Class
22,
not
in
Class
10.
The
appeal
is
allowed
with
costs
and
the
assessment
referred
back
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
a
new
assessment
to
be
made
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
mobile
cranes
of
plaintiff
mentioned
in
Exhibit
P-2
are,
with
the
exception
of
the
first
three,
to
be
placed
in
Class
22
of
Schedule
B
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations.
Email this Content