W
O
Davis:—These
appeals
were
heard
at
London,
Ontario
on
November
30,
1971
by
the
Tax
Appeal
Board
as
it
was
then
constituted.
On
May
16,
1962
the
appellants
Jacob
Byke,
his
wife
Mary
Byke
together
with
their
son
Mitchell
Byke
and
his
wife
Stella
Byke,
entered
into
an
agreement
with
Joseph
Alaica,
Simica
Alaica
and
Nada
Milos-
evich
as
vendors
to
purchase
all
the
outstanding
shares,
both
preferred
and
common,
of
the
Tecumseh
Hotel
(Chatham)
Limited
for
the
sum
of
$210,000
payable
$5,000
as
a
deposit
upon
the
signing
of
the
agreement;
$55,000
on
closing
and
subject
to
adjustment,
and
the
balance
by
way
of
a
mortgage
for
$150,000
to
be
given
by
Tecumseh
Hotel
(Chatham)
Limited
to
the
vendors
to
be
collaterally
secured
by
a
chattel
mortgage
on
all
the
chattel
assets
of
the
hotel
company.
The
mortgage
was
to
bear
interest
at
6%
per
annum
and
to
run
for
a
period
of
25
years.
The
offer
was
accepted
by
the
vendors
on
May
22,
1962,
and
was
to
be
completed
on
or
before
July
1,
1962.
The
balance
sheet
of
the
hotel
company
as
of
June
30,
1962
records
150
preferred
shares
and
20,003
common
shares
as
outstanding.
In
due
course
the
transaction
was
completed
and
adjustments
were
made
as
of
July
30,
1962;
the
balance
paid
on
closing
being
$57,065.12.
Upon
closing
the
vendors
transferred
all
of
the
issued
and
outstanding
preferred
and
common
shares
of
the
hotel
company
to
the
purchasers
as
follows:
|
Common
Shares
|
Preferred
Shares
|
Jacob
Byke
|
4801
|
36
|
Mary
Byke
|
4801
|
36
|
Mitchell
Byke
|
5600
|
42
|
Stella
Byke
|
4801
|
36
|
In
order
to
provide
the
necessary
funds
for
closing
Mitchell
Byke
and
Jacob
Byke
borrowed
from
the
Royal
Bank
of
Canada
at
Scotland,
Ontario
the
sum
of
$45,000
giving,
as
security,
a
promissory
note
dated
July
19,
1962
payable
on
demand
and
bearing
interest
at
6%
payable
monthly.
To
provide
for
the
balance
of
$150,000
which
was
not
being
paid
in
cash
by
the
appellants
personally
the
appellants
herein
and
the
other
purchaser
Mary
Byke
caused
the
corporate
entity
Tecumseh
Hotel
(Chatham)
Limited
to
give
to
the
said
vendors
a
first
mortgage
on
the
hotel
premises
in
the
amount
of
$150,000
bearing
interest
from
and
after
July
30,
1962
at
the
rate
of
6%
per
annum
payable
monthly.
The
principal
sum
was
due
and
payable
on
July
30,
1987,
with
monthly
payments
of
$400
on
account
of
principal
until
July
30,
1987.
The
mortgage
obligation
was
recorded
in
the
financial
records
of
the
hotel
company
by
journal
entries
showing
the
mortgage
as
payable
by
the
hotel
company
and
a
corresponding
note
receivable.
The
hotel
company
paid
the
principal
and
interest
payments
on
the
mortgage
as
they
fell
due
and
also
paid
the
interest
on
the
aforementioned
bank
loan
on
behalf
of
the
purchasers.
As
interest
was
paid
it
was
charged
to
Operating
Expense
by
the
hotel
and
as
payments
of
principal
were
made
an
equivalent
amount,
as
a
dividend,
was
charged
to
the
Earned
Surplus
account
and
credited
to
the
Note
Receivable.
The
personal
bank
loan
from
the
Royal
Bank
of
Canada
was
not
set
up
in
the
books
of
the
hotel
company
but
the
company,
nevertheless,
paid
the
interest
on
the
whole
loan
as
it
became
due
and
charged
such
payments
as
an
item
of
expense
of
the
hotel
in
its
taxation
years.
The
hotel
also
paid
off
$3,700
on
account
of
principal
on
the
loan
and
charged
the
payment
to
its
Earned
Surplus
account
as
a
dividend.
The
balance
of
the
loan
outstanding
was
paid
off
by
the
appellants
personally.
In
assessing
the
appellant
Jacob
Byke
for
the
year
1963
the
Minister
added
to
reported
income
the
taxpayer’s
proportionate
share
of
interest
payments
and
the
dividend
payments
during
the
year
which
had
not
been
reported
by
the
appellants
and
imposed
tax
on
the
same.
Following
the
filing
of
an
amended
return
by
Jacob
Byke
for
the
year
1964
the
Minister
added
$1,776.08
for
dividends
and
$2,766
for
mortgage
interest
and
taxed
the
same.
The
T5
information
memos
issued
by
Tecumseh
Hotel
for
the
year
1964
reported
$888.04
for
dividends
as
having
been
paid
to
Jacob
Byke
and
an
equal
amount
as
having
been
paid
to
his
wife
Mary
Byke.
In
assessing
the
appellant
Stella
Byke
in
respect
of
the
year
1964
the
Minister
added
to
the
appellant’s
reported
income
the
sum
of
$2,516.32
as
her
proportionate
share
of
bank
and
mortgage
interest
paid
by
the
hotel
company
during
the
year
1964
on
her
behalf.
Similarly,
for
the
year
1965
an
item
of
$2,033.95
was
added
as
the
appellant
Stella
Byke’s
proportionate
share
of
bank
and
mortgage
interest
and
$888.05
as
the
share
of
unreported
dividend
being
her
share
of
a
$3,700
payment
on
the
bank
loan.
For
the
year
1966
mortgage
interest
of
$1,924.19
was
added
and
taxed
together
with
an
unreported
amount
of
$161.52
as
mortgage
interest
received
by
the
taxpayers
and
not
in
issue
herein.
In
the
assessment
for
the
year
1967
the
sum
of
$1,847.52
was
added
as
the
taxpayers
proportionate
share
of
mortgage
interest
which
had
been
paid
by
Tecumseh
Hotel
and
an
amount
of
$1,152.05
in
respect
of
unreported
dividend
payment
from
the
hotel.
In
respect
of
Jacob
Byke’s
assessments
under
appeal
herein,
it
is
of
importance
to
bear
in
mind
that
his
wife
Mary
Byke
had
never
filed
an
income
tax
return
showing
any
income
received
by
her.
Until
the
year
1967
the
appellant
Jacob
Byke
always
claimed
full
exemption
in
respect
of
his
wife.
In
1967
Jacob
Byke
claimed
an
exemption
in
the
amount
of
$713.05
in
respect
of
his
dependent
wife
whose
income
for
that
year
was
represented
to
be
$536.95.
Upon
a
consideration
of
the
évidence
as
a
whole,
I
am
satisfied
that
Mary
Byke
had
no
funds
of
her
own
with
which
to
invest
in
the
purchase
of
shares
of
the
Tecumseh
Hotel
and,
therefore,
the
shares
transferred
to
and
registered
in
her
name
were
in
fact
beneficially
owned
by
her
husband
Jacob
Byke.
Any
income
arising
in
respect
thereof
must
be
regarded
as
income
of
her
husband,
Jacob
Byke,
by
virtue
of
the
provisions
of
subsection
(1)
of
section
16
and
subsection
(1)
of
section
8
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
RSC
1952,
c
148
and
amendments
thereto.
It
is
well
established
that
the
payments
of
interest
by
the
hotel
in
respect
of
the
bank
loan
and
the
said
mortgage
were
not
expended
by
the
hotel
for
the
purpose
of
gaining
or
producing
income
from
the
property
or
business
of
the
hotel
but
were
expended
for
the
purpose
of
paying
the
personal
obligations
of
its
shareholders.
It
follows,
therefore,
that
in
making
the
interest
payments
as
aforesaid
on
the
bank
loan
and
on
the
mortgage
which
the
corporate
entity
had
granted
in
order
to
facilitate
the
purchase
by
the.
four
shareholders
of
the
shares
of
the
hotel
company,
the
hotel
conferred
a
benefit
or
advantage
on
the
shareholders.
The
amount
of
principal
paid
by
the
hotel
was
shown
as
a
dividend
paid
by
the
hotel.
For
the
reasons
already
given
the
portion
of
the
interest
payments
and
dividends
were
assessed
and
taxed
as
income
of
the
appellants.
I
am
in
complete
agreement
with
the
course
followed
by
the
Minister
in
this
regard.
I
am
satisfied
that
the
Minister
proceeded
on
proper
principles
when
he
included
as
a
part
of
the
appellant
Jacob
Byke’s
income
the
benefits
conferred
upon
his
wife
Mary
Byke
in
the
years
1963
to
1967
inclusive.
It
is
to
be
observed
that
in
the
years
1964,
1965
and
1966,
the
hotel
filed
with
the
Minister
a
TS
return
reporting
as
a
dividend
the
principal
payments
made
on
the
said
mortgage.
These
dividend
payments
were
reported
by
the
shareholders
in
their
income
tax
returns
for
those
years.
However,
in
the
years
1963
and
1967
the
hotel
company
did
not
file
a
T5
return
and
the
said
shareholders
did
not
report
the
said
dividends
in
their
income
tax
returns
even
though
the
principal
payments
made
by
the
hotel
had
been
charged
to
Earned
Surplus
as
dividends
as
had
been
done
in
the
other
years.
I
accept
the
Minister’s
submission
that
by
not
declaring
as
dividends
the
amount
of
the
principal
payments
charged
to
Earned
Surplus
account
as
a
dividend
paid
out
by
the
hotel
in
1963,
the
appellants
made
a
misrepresentation
in
supplying
information
regarding
their
income
for
the
year
as
required
by
the
provision
of
the
Act
and
accordingly
it
was
open
to
the
Minister
to
reassess
the
appellants
for
the
1963
taxation
year
notwithstanding
that
more
than
four
years
had
passed
following
the
day
of
mailing
the
respective
notices
of
original
assessments
for
the
1963
taxation
year.
All
in
all
I
find
the
Minister’s
assessments
under
review
herein
to
have
been
properly
made
in
all
respects,
in
full
compliance
with
all
the
relevant
provisions
of
the
Act,
and
should
not
be
disturbed.
These
appeals
are,
therefore,
dismissed.
Appeals
dismissed.