A
W
Prociuk:—The
point
to
determine
in
this
appeal
is
whether
or
not
the
appellant
during
the
years
1966
and
1967
carried
on
the
business
of
farming
with
a
reasonable
expectation
of
profit
and
was
entitled
to
deduct
his
farming
expenses
from
his
other
income.
The
case
was
heard
on
June
7,
1971
at
a
hearing
held
in
the
City
of
Regina,
in
the
Province
of
Saskatchewan,
at
which
the
presiding
member
was
J
O
Weldon,
Esquire,
QC,
then
a
member
of
the
Tax
Appeal
Board
which,
on
December
15,
1971,
became
the
Tax
Review
Board.
However,
judgment
was
reserved
and
no
decision
rendered
by
him
prior
to
his
retirement
from
the
Board
in
March
of
1972.
Accordingly,
by
consent
of
both
parties,
this
Board
has
now
been
given
jurisdiction
to
issue
its
decision
and
judgment
on
the
basis
of
the
transcript
of
the
evidence
and
the
argument
taken
before
Mr
Weldon,
without
further
representation
by
counsel.
The
facts
are
brief
and
not
in
dispute.
The
appellant
was
born
and
raised
on
a
farm
in
the
Esterhazy
district,
Saskatchewan
and
from
his
earliest
years
yearned
to
be
a
farmer.
In
1959,
at
age
19,
he
acquired
an
interest
in
a
farm
with
his
father’s
assistance
and
from
then
continued
to
increase
his
equity
in
the
land
and
to
acquire
personal
property
yearly.
At
date
of
this
hearing
(June
1971)
his
herd
of
caitle
alone
was
estimated
to
be
worth
$10,000
in
addition
to
other
farm
property
which
he
accumulated.
In
the
years
in
question
he
worked
at
other
employments
and
used
that
income
to
improve
and
enlarge
his
farming
operation.
He
has
continued
to
do
so
ever
since.
It
is
not
unreasonable
to
expect
that
in
a
very
near
future
the
size
of
his
farming
operation
will
be
so
extensive
that
he
will
be
obliged
to
devote
all
his
time
to
it.
While
we
are
not
concerned
with
other
years
of
his
operations,
it
is,
however,
of
some
assistance
in
determining
what
his
expectation
was.
It
is
noted
that
at
the
hearing
the
farming
expenses
for
the
years
in
question
were
not
fully
determined.
At
page
101
of
the
transcript
agreement
was
reached
by
the
parties
that,
if
the
appellant
succeeded
in
his
appeal,
the
question
of
specific
expenditures
is
to
be
referred
back
to
the
Minister
for
final
determination
of
same
with
the
appellant.
The
evidence,
in
my
opinion,
clearly
establishes
the
appellant’s
case
and
the
appeal,
accordingly,
is
allowed.
Pursuant
to
the
agreement
referred
to
above,
there
will
be
an
order
that
the
question
of
farming
expenses
in
the
years
1966
and
1967
be
referred
back
to
the
Minister
for
determination
and
for
necessary
adjustments
resulting
therefrom.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content