JACKETT,
P.:—I
do
not
think
that
this
appeal
calls
for
a
review
of
the
cases
or
for
a
review
of
the
evidence.
The
facts
are
set
out
in
the
decision
of
the
Tax
Appeal
Board.
On
the
one
hand,
there
was
a
purchase
of
a
parcel
of
real
estate
in
downtown
Toronto
that
was
developed
and
in
an
incomeproducing
state.
Upon
the
evidence,
it
was
purchased
for
incomeproducing
purposes.
On
the
other
hand,
there
is
the
fact
that
the
sale
had
hardly
been
completed
when
there
was
a
quick
re-sale
resulting
in
a
substantial
profit.
Unexplained,
that
quick
re-sale
and
profit
might
give
rise
to
an
inference
that
the
acquisition
and
re-sale
was
a
venture
in
the
nature
of
trade
within
the
meaning
of
those
words
as
used
in
the
definition
of
‘‘business’’
in
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
re-sale,
however,
has
been
explained
by
the
evidence
of
Mr.
Sebba,
which
I
accept,
that
the
increasing
amounts
of
the
offers
made
to
the
appellant
by
the
person
who
purchased
from
the
appellant,
which
offers
were
completely
unexpected,
became
too
great
for
him
to
resist.
I
further
accept
his
evidence
that
possibility
of
re-sale
was
not
one
of
the
possibilities
contemplated
by
the
appellant
at
the
time
that
the
appellant
entered
into
the
agreement
for
acquisition
of
the
property.
For
the
purpose
of
determining
whether
a
transaction
is
a
transaction
in
the
course
of
a
business
or
is
a
venture
in
the
nature
of
trade,
the
time
as
of
which
the
intention
of
the
purchaser
is
significant
is
ordinarily,
in
my
opinion,
the
time
when
the
purchase
agreement
becomes
legally
binding
rather
than
the
time
when
legal
title
is
acquired.
As
I
understand
Regal
Heights
Limited
v.
M.N.R.,
[1960]
S.C.R.
902;
[1960]
C.T.C.
384,
there
was,
at
the
time
of
acquisition
by
the
appellant
of
the
property
there
involved,
two
alternative
intentions,
one
being
the
proposed
development
of
a
shopping
centre
and
the
other
being
re-sale
in
the
event
that
it
became
impossible
to
carry
out
that
development.
In
this
case
I
can
find
no
evidence
upon
which
there
can
be
based
any
inference
that,
at
the
time
of
acquisition
of
the
property,
the
appellant
had
in
mind
even
a
possibility
of
re-sale.
The
only
other
case
to
which
I
think
I
should
refer
is
Irrigation
Industries
Limited
v.
M.N.R.,
[1962]
Ex.
C.R.
346;
[1962]
C.T.C.
215.
I
refer
to
that
case
only
to
say
that,
having
regard
to
the
conclusion
that
I
have
reached,
I
do
not
find
it
necessary
to
deal
with
Mr.
Goodman’s
alternative
argument.
The
appeal
is
allowed
with
costs.
Judgment
accordingly.
Email this Content