Pratte
J:—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
the
Trial
Division
dismissing
the
appellant’s
appeal
from
an
income
tax
reassessment
in
respect
of
its
1978
taxation
year.
The
appellant
carries
on
business
as
an
operator
of
grain
elevators
at
Bassin
Louise,
in
the
port
of
Quebec.
In
1977,
it
undertook
a
major
upgrading
of
the
discharging
facilities
connected
with
its
grain
elevator
operations
in
order
to
increase
its
efficiency
and
to
service
large
ocean-going
vessels.
The
cost
of
upgrading
those
facilities
was
$8,285,715.
In
computing
its
income
tax
for
the
years
1978
and
1979,
the
appellant
claimed,
in
respect
of
those
expenditures,
investment
tax
credits
under
section
127
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
aggregating
$571,731.
Those
claims
were
disallowed
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
on
the
sole
ground
that
the
new
discharging
facilities
of
the
appellant
were
not
“qualified
property’’
within
the
meaning
of
subsection
127(10)
of
the
Act
in
that
those
facilities
had
not
been
acquired
by
the
appellant
to
be
used
“primarily
for
the
purpose
of
.
.
.
the
storing
of
grain’’.
That
decision
of
the
Minister
was
confirmed
by
the
Trial
Division
which
held
that
the
new
equipment
acquired
by
the
appellant
was
not
used
primarily
for
the
purpose
of
the
storing
of
grain,
but,
rather,
for
the
purpose
of
the
shipping
of
grain
on
board
outgoing
vessels.
The
appellant’s
grain
elevators
at
Bassin
Louise
are
built
some
200
feet
from
the
edge
of
the
wharf
where
the
ships
load
grain.
Some
special
equipment
and
machinery
is
therefore
required
to
unload
the
grain
from
the
incoming
ships
into
the
elevators
and
to
discharge
it
from
the
elevators
into
the
outward-bound
vessels.
The
facilities
upgraded
by
the
appellant
were
those
used
to
discharge
the
grain
from
the
elevators
into
the
ships.
It
is
common
ground
that
they
could
not
be
used
for
any
other
purpose
and
were
entirely
distinct
from
the
facilities
used
to
unload
the
grain
from
the
incoming
ships
into
the
silos.
The
only
question
on
this
appeal,
therefore,
is
whether
those
new
discharging
facilities
were
used
by
the
appellant
“primarily
for
the
purpose
of.
.
.
the
storing
of
grain’’.
That
question
must,
in
my
view,
be
answered
in
the
affirmative.
The
storage
of
grain
requires
not
only
that
there
be
silos
where
the
grain
can
be
stored
but
also
that
the
silos
be
provided
with
the
equipment
necessary
to
receive
the
grain
for
storage
and
deliver
it
to
its
owner
after
it
has
been
stored.
In
my
opinion,
the
equipment
required
to
discharge
grain
from
the
appellant’s
silos
was
equipment
used
for
“the
storing
of
grain’’
because
the
discharge
of
grain
from
a
silo
appears
to
me
to
be
a
necessary
and
integral
part
of
the
storing
of
the
grain.
I
cannot,
for
this
reason,
agree
with
the
conclusion
of
the
trial
judge.
I
would
allow
the
appeal,
set
aside
the
judgment
of
the
Trial
Division,
vacate
the
reassessment
of
the
appellant’s
income
tax
for
the
1978
taxation
year
and
refer
the
matter
back
to
the
Minister
for
reasessment
on
the
basis
that
the
new
discharging
facilities
built
by
the
appellant
in
1978
and
1979
were
to
be
used
by
it
primarily
for
the
purpose
of
the
storing
of
grain
within
the
meaning
of
subparagraph
127(10)(c)(ix)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Email this Content