A
J
Frost:—This
is
an
appeal
from
income
tax
assessments
in
respect
of
the
appellant’s
1967
and
1968
taxation
years,
heard
at
Belleville,
Ontario
on
December
14,
1971
by
the
Tax
Appeal
Board
as
it
was
then
constituted.
Upon
Notices
of
Objection
duly
signed
and
filed,
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
confirmed
the
said
assessments
on
April
28,
1971
as
being
in
accordance
with
the
appropriate
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Counsel
for
the
respondent,
however,
said
in
his
opening
remarks
in
respect
of
the
1968
assessment,
that
the
Minister
was
not
going
to
proceed
with
the
issue
raised
in
the
Reply
to
Notice
of
Appeal
and
that
he
had
been
advised
to
instruct
the
Board
that
the
appeal
should
be
allowed
in
so
far
as
the
said
1968
assessment
was
concerned.
The
Board
then
proceeded
to
hear
the
appeal
in
respect
of
the
1967
assessment
only.
The
appellant
carried
on
a
plumbing
and
heating
business
in
association
with
his
father
under
the
name
of
Peterborough
Plumbing
Supplies,
and
gradually
developed
considerable
expertise
in
improving
properties.
He
became
involved
in
so
many
real
estate
transactions
over
a
relatively
short
period
of
years
that
the
only
conclusion
the
Board
can
draw
from
his
whole
course
of
conduct
is
that
he
was
an
active
real
estate
trader
and
engaged
in
‘the
real
estate
business
with
a
view
to
profit.
According
to
appellant’s
testimony,
he
was
ready
and
willing
to
sell
his
real
estate
holdings
whenever
a
suitable
opportunity
presented
itself.
In
view
of
the
appellant’s
background,
the
question
now
arises
as
to
whether
the
gain
realized
in
1967
on
the
sale
of
380
Park
Street
in
the
City
of
Peterborough,
which
the
appellant
occupied
as
a
residence,
should
be
characterized
as
income
under
the
appropriate
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Normally
a
residence
is
considered
an
investment
and
any
gain
realized
is
ordinarily
recognized
as
a
capital
gain.
In
this
case
the
appellant
had
learned
that
the
subject
house
was
in
need
of
repair
and
that
it
was
being
offered
for
$27,000
by
the
executors.
of
an
estate.
The
appellant
was
successful
in
acquiring
it
for
$20,500
but
sold
it
again
within
one
year
at
$30,500,
realizing
a
net
profit
of
$9,366.30.
Under
the
circumstances,
!
cannot
find
any
rationale
for
finding
that
the
sale
of
380
Park
Street
should
be
regarded
as
an
investment.
The
occupancy
was,
in
my
view,
too
short
to
conclude
that
the
house
was
meant
to
be
a
permanent
residence
and
the
assertion
by
the
appellant
that
the
said
house
was
in
a
badly
run-down
condition
strengthens
this
point
of
view.
The
whole
course
of
conduct
of
the
aopellant
convinced
me
at
the
time
of
the
hearing
that
his
appeal
must
fail,
which
decision
was
indicated
by
me
at
the
conclusion
of
the
hearing.
Appeal
herein
is
hereby
allowed
in
respect
of
the
1968
taxation
year
and
is
dismissed
in
respect
of
the
1967
taxation
year.
Appeal
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content