Roland
St-Onge
(orally:
November
4,
1977)
[TRANSLATION]:—The
appeals
of
Messrs
André
Vaillancourt,
Jean
Vaillancourt,
Robert
Vaillancourt,
Aldéric
Vaillancourt
and
Gaston
Vaillancourt
were
brought
before
me
on
November
3,
1977
in
Montreal,
Quebec.
It
was
agreed
that
the
decision
reached
in
the
appeal
of
Mr
Robert
Vaillancourt
would
apply
to
the
other
cases.
The
Board
must
decide
whether
the
profit
realized
from
the
sale
of
a
plot
of
land
in
1971
constitutes
a
taxable
gain.
At
the
hearing,
the
appellants
admitted
the
following
allegations
in
the
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal:
5.
(a)
On
April
22,
1968,
Mr
Robert
Vaillancourt
purchased
from
Mr
Gérard
Chalifoux
part
of
plot
267
located
south
of
Chemin
de
I’Equerre
in
the
parish
of
Ste-Rose
for
the
sum
of
$35,000;
(b)
according
to
a
trust
declaration
dated
the
same
day,
Mr
Robert
Vaillancourt
acted
for
Messrs
André,
Robert,
Aldéric,
Gaston
and
Jean
Vaillancourt
in
this
transaction;
(c)
the
trust
declaration
describes
the
participation
of
these
persons
as
follows:
|
Mr
André
Vaillancourt
|
1/8
|
|
Mr
Robert
Vaillancourt
|
2/8
|
|
Mr
Aldéric
Vaillancourt
|
2/8
|
|
Mr
Gaston
Vaillancourt
|
1/8
|
|
Mr
Jean
Vaillancourt
through
Mrs
Pauline
Grenier-Vaillancourt
|
2/8
|
(g)
On
November
16,
1971,
Mr
Robert
Vaillancourt
sold
the
said
part
of
plot
267
to
the
Société
Immobilière
Arliane
SA
de
Panama
for
$209,663.72,
his
share
of
the
profit
amounting
to
$17,584.94
.
.
.
Further,
Mr
Gaston
Vaillancourt,
a
notary,
explained
that
his
brother
Robert
had
loaned
Mr
Chalifoux
$12,000
in
first
and
second
mortgages
on
a
forty-acre
plot
of
land,
a
sum
which
the
latter
was
unable
to
repay.
In
view
of
the
fact
that
the
appellants
were
from
a
large
family
(eighteen
children
raised
on
a
farm),
they
preferred
to
buy
the
land
for
$35,000
instead
of
suing
a
friend.
Gaston,
Aldéric
and
Robert
Vaillancourt
all
gave
sworn
testimony
that
at
the
time
of
the
purchase
they
did
not
intend
to
sell
this
land
at
a
profit
but
to
recover
the
sum
of
$12,000
and
to
own
land
that
might
be
used
for
gardening
or
for
a
race
track.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
was
unable
to
prove
his
allegation
that,
between
1956
and
1974,
each
of
the
persons
involved
in
the
transaction
under
examination
had
been
actively
involved
in
one
or
more
commercial
transactions
in
the
region.
Instead,
he
admitted
that
the
evidence
did
not
show
any
history
of
speculation
on
the
appellants’
part.
The
evidence
further
showed
that
the
appellants
had
sold
the
land
because
they
feared
substantial
tax
increases
as
a
result
of
the
new
Real
Estate
Assessment
Act,
c
50,
adopted
in
early
1971.
Mr
Gaston
Vaillancourt
explained
that
the
appellants
had
agreed
to
sell
their
land
for
$2,600
per
acre
and
that
the
real
estate
agent
had
to
increase
the
price
in
order
to
pay
his
commission.
Recent
decisions
of
the
Federal
Court
have
shown
that
the
judges
of
this
Court
attach
a
great
deal
of
importance
to
the
testimony
of
appellants.
Once
the
latter
appear
to
be
telling
the
truth
as
to
their
intentions,
the
Court
grants
them
the
benefit
of
the
doubt.
In
the
case
at
bar,
the
appellants
are
the
sons
of
a
farmer
and
it
is
reasonable
to
believe
that
their
intention
was
to
own
a
forty-acre
plot
of
land
while
enabling
a
member
of
their
family
to
recover
$12,000.
They
could
use
this
land
for
gardening
or
for
a
race
track,
which
their
children
could
use.
The.
Board
believes
that
the
appellants
spoke
the
truth
and
therefore
allows
the
appeals.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content