NOEL,
J.:—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
(23
Tax
A.B.C.
233)
which
affirmed
a
reassessment
with
respect
to
the
appellant’s
income
tax
assessment
for
the
year
1955
by
which
an
amount
of
profits
in
the
sum
of
$16,864.62
for
the
year
1955
realized
on
the
sale
of
a
number
of
oil
and
gas
leases
and
rights
was
added
to
the
taxpayer’s
income
for
the
above
year
as
follows:
For
1955
|
|
Interest
received
New
Superior
Oils
re-
|
|
ported
in
error
|
$
50.00
|
|
Interest
received
Western
Tungsten
&
|
|
Copper
Mines
not
reported
in
error
|
90.00
|
$
|
140.00
|
Net
gains
|
|
Crown
Petroleum
&
Natural
Gas
Reser-
|
|
vations
513
&
514
|
$
1,264.34
|
|
Crown
Petroleum
&
Natural
Gas
Reser-
|
|
vation
1268
|
2,976.40
|
|
Crown
Petroleum
&
Natural
Gas
Reser-
|
|
vation
1326
plus
interspersed
leases
.
|
14,102.50
|
|
|
$18,343.24
|
|
Deduct
lease
rentals
|
1,618.62
|
$16,724.62
|
|
$16,864.62
|
The
taxpayer,
a
professional
consulting
geologist,
had,
in
the
last
twenty
years,
acquired
rights
to
oil
lands
on
twelve
occasions
for
the
purpose
of
having
them
explored,
developed
and
then
obtaining
a
royalty
or
a
payment
out
of
the
oil
or
gas
found.
For
the
appellant,
it
is
contended
that
the
amounts
so
added
to
his
income
were
merely
the
realization
of
a
capital
asset
and
as
such
were
not
taxable;
that
they
were
investments
from
which
he
hoped
to
receive
taxable
income
by
way
of
royalties;
that
as
an
alternative
argument
and
in
the
event
he
should
not
succeed
in
his
contention
that
the
profits
realized
were
capital
profits
he
is
entitled
to
apply
Section
1800
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations
pursuant
to
Section
14(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
and
place
his
inventory
of
petroleum
and
natural
gas
interest
on
a
fair
market
value
figure
which,
on
that
basis,
would
indicate
that
he
has
sustained
no
profits,
but
has
incurred
losses.
For
the
Minister,
it
is
contended
that
the
sums
were
income
from
a
business
and,
therefore,
within
Sections
3
and
4
and
127(1)
(e)
of
the
1948
Act
which
was
merely
renumbered
139(1)
(e)
in
the
1952
Act;
that
the
taxpayer
was
not
entitled
under
Section
14(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
and
Section
1800
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations
to
place
his
inventory
on
a
basis
other
than
cost.
This
appeal,
and
two
others,
bearing
numbers
160972
and
160973
and
all
rising
out
of
the
same
set
of
circumstances,
came
on
for
hearing
at
Calgary,
Alberta,
at
the
same
time.
A
judgment
was
rendered
in
one
of
these
appeals
bearing
number
160973
[[1962]
C.T.C.
572]
covering
the
facts
contained
in
all
the
appeals.
Indeed,
all
the
evidence
adduced
and
arguments
proposed
apply
to
the
three
appeals
and
the
Court’s
decision
in
case
160973,
with
the
exception
of
the
matter
of
the
tardiness
of
the
assessment
which
applies
only
to
the
1952
taxation
year,
shall
be
the
decision
of
this
Court
in
this
appeal
also.
Judgment
has
today
been
handed
down
in
case
bearing
number
160973
of
this
Court
holding
that
the
profit
of
the
taxpayer
from
his
oil
and
gas
right
transactions
was
profit
from
a
business
within
the
meaning
of
Sections
3
and
4
of
the
Act
as
extended
by
Section
127(1)
(e),
later
replaced
by
Section
139(1)
(e)
of
the
same
Act;
that
the
taxpayer
was
entitled
under
Section
14(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
and
Section
1800
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations,
passed
pursuant
thereto,
to
produce
an
inventory
of
his
properties
on
a
fair
market
value
basis
which
as
of
December
31,
1951,
had
the
following
fair
market
values
:
#730
|
$
8,544.00
|
#513
|
2,177.00
|
#514
|
941.00
|
#1317
|
6,050.60
|
#1318
|
15,392.22
|
|
41,811.00
|
#1326
|
|
Shell
Freehold
|
1,491.00
|
Imperial
Freehold
|
7,091.00
|
#1268
|
45,922.40
|
C.P.R.
|
8,360.80
|
|
$137,721.02
|
and
finally
allowing
the
appeals
with
costs
and
referring
the
assessments
back
to
the
Minister
to
be
revised
accordingly.
For
the
same
reasons
as
stated
in
case
number
160973
of
the
Exchequer
Court
of
Canada—and
which
may
be
considered
as
forming
part
of
this
judgment—the
present
appeal
is
allowed
and
the
assessment
here
should
also
be
referred
back
to
the
Minister
to
be
revised
accordingly.
The
appellant
is
entitled
to
his
costs
after
taxation,
but
inasmuch
as
the
same
counsel
appeared
for
the
appellant
in
all
these
cases
which
were
dealt
with
in
one
hearing,
the
appellant’s
costs
at
the
trial
will
be
limited
to
one
case.
Judgment
accordingly.