Linden
J.A.:
We
can
see
no
basis
upon
which
to
interfere
with
the
decision
of
the
Tax
Court.
Based
on
the
facts
as
found
and
the
authorities
relied
on
by
the
Tax
Court
Judge,
he
arrived
at
the
right
decision.
That
outcome
is
fortified
by
the
Neuman
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
decision
(1998),
98
D.T.C.
6297
(S.C.C.)
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada,
released
following
the
date
of
that
decision
in
which
Mr.
Justice
Iacobucci
warned
that
Courts
should
not
be
“quick
to
embellish”
tax
avoidance
provisions
in
the
Income
Tax
Act
but
should
await
“precise
and
specific”
measures
from
legislators
to
combat
any
perceived
“mischief”
(See
p.
6305).
He
reminded
as
that
“taxpayers
can
arrange
their
affairs
in
a
particular
way
for
the
sole
purpose
of
deliberately
availing
themselves
of
the
tax
reduction
levies
on
the
Income
Tax
Act.”
That,
he
explained,
included
the
use
of
“corporate
structures
which
exist
for
the
sole
purpose
of
avoiding
tax”.
It
follows
that
other
structures,
including
trusts,
may
also
be
used
to
save
tax,
as
long
as
proper
legal
documentation
is
prepared
to
accomplish
the
purpose
desired.
Despite
the
able
argument
of
Mr.
McNary,
we
have
not
been
persuaded
that
the
agreements
between
the
trust
and
the
taxpayer
and
the
trust
and
the
company
were
illegal
for
purposes
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(See
Section
104
(2))
nor
improper
under
trust
law,
which
now
appears
to
permit
structures
called
“business
trusts”,
which
conduct
businesses.
(See
Flannigan
“The
Nature
and
Duration
of
the
Business
Trust”
6
Estates
and
Trusts
Quarterly
181).
Nor
have
we
been
persuaded
that
the
Alberta
Business
Corporations
Act
has
been
violated
by
these
agreements.
In
addition,
we
are
not
convinced
that
section
56
(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
applies
to
the
facts
of
this
case.
The
appeal
should
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content