Date: 20020703
Docket:
1999-4930-IT-G
BETWEEN:
BLUE MOUNTAIN RESORTS
LIMITED,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasonsfor
Judgment
Beaubier,
J.T.C.C.
[1]
This appeal pursuant to the General Procedure was heard at
Toronto, Ontario on June 10, 2002. The Appellant called its
Vice President, Finance, Harold Abbotts and an expert witness,
James Saloman, C.A., who qualified as an expert to testify
respecting the Appellant's treatment under Canadian Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles of the revenue which the Appellant
received from sales of passes which are the subject of this
appeal.
[2]
Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 of the Notice of
Appeal were admitted. They read:
The
Appellant
1.
The Appellant is a corporation existing under the laws of the
Province of Ontario whose principal place of business is County
Road 19, Town of the Blue Mountains, R.R. 3, Collingwood,
Ontario, L9Y 3Z2.
Assessment Under
Appeal
2.
The assessment under appeal was made by Notice of Reassessment
under the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the "Act")
dated May 1, 1998 in respect of the Appellant's taxation year
ending October 31, 1994.
Determination Under
Appeal
3.
The determination of non-capital loss under appeal was made by
Notice of Determination of a Loss made under the Act dated
October 8, 1998 in respect of the Appellant's taxation year
ending October 31, 1995.
Facts
4.
At all relevant times, the business of the Appellant included the
provision of recreational services, including ski runs and indoor
tennis courts.
...
6.
In computing its income for 1994, the Appellant:
(i)
included the amount of $1,175,055 as revenue from the sale of
season passes entitling the holder of those passes to services
rendered by the Appellant after the end of the taxation year,
namely, the use of its ski and indoor tennis facilities, under
paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Act; and
(ii)
deducted the amount of $1,175,055 as a reserve in respect of such
services to be rendered after the end of the year under paragraph
20(1)(m) of the Act.
7.
In computing its non-capital loss for 1995, the
Appellant:
(i)
included the amount of $1,211,913 as revenue from the sale of
season passes entitling the holders of those passes to services
to be rendered by the Appellant after the end of the taxation
year, namely, the use of its ski and indoor tennis facilities,
under paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Act; and
(ii)
deducted the amount of $1,211,913 as a reserve in respect of such
services to be rendered after the end of the year under paragraph
20(1)(m) of the Act.
8.
In his reassessment for 1994, the Minister of National Revenue
(the "Minister") added in computing income the amount
of $1,175,055 in respect of the sale of season passes but did not
allow the Appellant any reserve.
9.
In his reassessment for 1995, the Minister included the amount of
$1,211,913 in respect of the sale of season passes in computing
the Appellant's loss, but did not allow the Appellant any
reserve.
...
12.
The Appellant duly objected to the reassessment referred to in
paragraph 2 above and the Minister confirmed the reassessment by
Notice of Confirmation dated September 17, 1999.
13.
The Appellant duly objected to the determination of loss referred
to in paragraph 3 above and the Minister confirmed the
determination by Notice of Confirmation dated
September 17, 1999.
[3]
Paragraphs 3 to 7 inclusive of the Amended Reply to the Notice of
Appeal read:
3.
He admits the facts as stated in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the
Notice of Appeal, except that he says that the amount of the non
capital loss initially carried back by the Appellant from its
1995 taxation year to its 1994 taxation year was $117,609 and not
$117,639.
4.
In reassessing the Appellant for its 1994 taxation year and
determining the Appellant's non capital loss for its
1995 taxation year as described in paragraphs 8, 9 and
11 of the Notice of Appeal and confirming the reassessment of the
1994 taxation year and loss determination for the 1995 taxation
year as described in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Notice of
Appeal, the Minister of National Revenue (the
"Minister") made, inter alia, the following
assumptions:
a)
the Appellant is a corporation existing under the laws of
Ontario;
b)
the Appellant's taxation year end is October 31;
c)
the Appellant is in the business of providing recreation, food
and lodging and other services, including ski and tennis
facilities in Collingwood, Ontario;
d)
generally, the ski season is four months long, from the December
of one calendar year to the end of March of the next calendar
year;
e)
during and up to the end of its 1994 taxation year, the Appellant
sold season passes for the immediately upcoming 1994-1995
ski season (the "1994 Season Passes");
f)
during and up to the end of its 1995 taxation year, the Appellant
sold season passes for the immediately upcoming 1995-1996
ski season (the "1995 Season Passes");
g)
included in the "Season Pass Application" and
"Application and Contract" offered to customers during
the Appellant's 1994 and 1995 taxation years for its 1994
Season Passes and 1995 Season Passes, respectively, were the
following limitation clauses ("Limitation
Clauses"):
"Blue Mountain does
not provide refunds or credits for any reason on Seasons Passes.
If you wish to have insurance protection, we have enclosed a
Season Pass Insurance Plan offered by Creighton and Company
Insurance Brokers."
"The length of the ski
season is dependent on weather and snow conditions, but generally
Blue Mountain is open from December to end of
March";
Resort Facilities will
operate daily at the discretion of management. There shall be no
refunds in case of cancellation of operations on account of
weather, conditions or mechanical failure of
equipment."
h)
the "Season Pass Application" and "Application and
Contract" also included the following the term:
"The purchaser herein
acknowledges he/she has read the terms and conditions of the
APPLICATION AND CONTRACT FOR [the upcoming] SEASON PASSES printed
on the back of the application form and agrees to be governed and
abide by them.";
i)
during the relevant period, the Limitation Clauses and other
clauses contained in the "Season Pass Application" and
"Application and Contract" were valid and binding on
the Appellant and its customers;
j)
in its 1994 taxation year and from the sale of 1994 Season
Passes, the Appellant earned income in the amount of $1,175,055
("1994 Season Passes Income");
k)
in its 1995 taxation year and from the sale of 1995 Season
Passes, the Appellant earned income in the amount of $1,211,913
("1995 Season Passes Income");
l)
the Appellant was under no restriction, contractual or otherwise,
as to its disposition, use or enjoyment of the 1994 Season Passes
Income and 1995 Season Passes Income, respectively;
m)
the Appellant was under no obligation to return the 1994 Season
Passes Income and the 1995 Season Passes Income to its customers,
nor was the Appellant under any restrictions as to the manner in
which it used the 1994 Season Passes Income and the 1995 Season
Passes Income;
n)
the 1994 Season Passes Income and the 1995 Season Passes Income
was income that was earned by the Appellant in its 1994 and 1995
taxation years, respectively;
o)
the amount of the Appellant's non capital loss for its 1995
taxation year was $332,728 and not $369,586;
p)
the amount of the Appellant's non capital loss available from
its 1995 taxation year to be carried back to its 1994 taxation
year is $80,751 and not $117,609;
q)
in the alternative, if the 1994 Season Passes Income and
the 1995 Season Passes Income are included in the Appellant's
income in its 1994 and 1995 taxation years, respectively,
pursuant to paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act,
R.S.C. 1985, (5th Suppl.) c. 1, as amended (the
"Act") on account of services rendered by the
Appellant after those years and are properly deductible as a
reserve under paragraph 20(1)(m) of the Act, (which is not
admitted but denied), then the amount of the Appellant's
paragraph 20(1)(m) reserve for its 1994 and 1995 taxation
years, respectively, is not more then [sic] a nominal
amount.
B.
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
5.
The issue is whether the 1994 Season Passes Income and the 1995
Seasons Passes Income was income earned by the Appellant in its
1994 and 1995 taxation years, respectively.
6.
In the alternative, if the 1994 Seasons Passes Income and
the 1995 Seasons Passes Income are properly included in the
Appellant's income in its 1994 and 1995 taxation years,
respectively, under paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Act on
account of services rendered after those years and are properly
deductible as a reserve under paragraph 20(1)(m) of the
Act, (which is not admitted but denied), then the issue is
whether the amount of the Appellant's paragraph 20(1)(m)
reserve for its 1994 and 1995 taxation years, respectively, is
not more then [sic] a nominal amount.
C.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS, GROUNDS RELIED ON , AND RELIEF
SOUGHT
7.
He relies, inter alia, on subsections 9(1) and 111(8) and
paragraphs 12(1)(a), 18(1)(e), 20(1)(m), 111(1)(a)
of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as
amended (the "Act").
[4]
Assumptions 4 a) to m) inclusive were not refuted. In particular,
having regard to the matters at issue, attention is drawn to
assumption 4 c) which describes the Appellant as being in the
business of providing "services".
[5]
The provisions of the Income Tax Act
("Act") in dispute read as follows:
1.
The definition of "property" in subsection 248(1),
which includes -
(a)
a right of any kind whatever, a share or a chose in
action,
2.
Paragraph 12(1)(a) -
12
(1) There shall be included in
computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income
from a business or property such of the following amounts as are
applicable:
(a)
any amount received by the taxpayer in the year in the course of
a business
(i)
that is on account of services not rendered or goods not
delivered before the end of the year or that, for any other
reason, may be regarded as not having been earned in the year or
a previous year, or
(ii)
under an arrangement or understanding that it is repayable in
whole or in part on the return or resale to the taxpayer of
articles in or by means of which goods were delivered to a
customer;
3.
Paragraph 20(1)(m) -
20
(1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), (b) and
(h), in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation
year from a business or property, there may be deducted such of
the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or
such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded
as applicable thereto:
...
(m)
subject to subsection (6), where amounts described in paragraph
12(1)(a) have been included in computing the
taxpayer's income from a business for the year or a previous
year, a reasonable amount as a reserve in respect of
(i)
goods that it reasonably anticipated will have to be delivered
after the end of the year,
(ii)
services that it is reasonably anticipated will have to be
rendered after the end of the year,
(iii)
periods for which rent or other amounts for the possession or use
of land or chattels have been paid in advance, or
(iv)
repayments under arrangements or understandings of the class
described in subparagraph 12(1)(a)(ii) that it is
reasonably anticipated will have to be made after the end of the
year on the return or resale to the taxpayer of articles other
than bottles;
[6]
Paragraph 12(1)(a) assumes the existence of a contract, or
right to claim, for the provision by the vendor of future goods
or services. Otherwise the money the Appellant received would
have been a gift from the payor.
[7]
In this case the contract is for the provision of future services
namely, the use of the tennis and ski facilities. Ultimately, in
law, if those services could not be provided in the future, the
contract would be frustrated and the fee would be refundable by
the Appellant.
[8]
Evidence was led respecting a number of discretionary refunds of
fees by the Appellant and the restrictive clauses in the
Appellant's form "Season Pass Application for the 1994 -
95 Ski Season" together with the clause referring an
applicant to a broker for a season pass insurance plan. Despite
these clauses, the law could require reimbursement in some
instances.
[9]
However, the answer to the issue in dispute lies in the
provisions of the Act itself. Using the words of paragraph
12(1)(a), the fee received by the Appellant in the year in
the course of business was on account of services not rendered
before the end of the year. Therefore, pursuant to subparagraph
20(1)(m)(ii), the Appellant may deduct a reasonable amount
as a reserve where amounts described in paragraph 12(1)(a)
have been included in computing the taxpayer's income from a
business for the year in respect of services that it is
reasonably anticipated will have to be rendered after the end of
the year.
[10]
All of the services would be rendered after October 31 since the
passes could only be picked up after November 7. Thus it is
reasonable that the entire amount of the fees should be a
reserve.
[11]
The appeals are allowed. The Appellant is awarded party and party
costs.
Signed at Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, this 3rd day of July, 2002.
"D. W. Beaubier"
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
1999-4930(IT)G
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Blue Mountain Resorts Limited v.
Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF
HEARING:
June 10, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BY: The Honourable Judge D. W.
Beaubier
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
July 3, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Appellant: Colin
Campbell
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Margaret J. Nott
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the
Appellant:
Name:
Colin Campbell
Firm:
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
Toronto, Ontario
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
1999-4930(IT)G
BETWEEN:
BLUE MOUNTAIN RESORTS LIMITED,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on June 10, 2002 at Toronto,
Ontario, by
the Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier
Appearances
Counsel for the
Appellant:
Colin Campbell
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Margaret J. Nott
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax
Act for the 1994 taxation year is allowed and the matter
is referred to the Minister of National Revenue for
reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the attached
Reasons for Judgment.
The appeal from the determination made under the Income Tax
Act for the 1995 taxation year is allowed and the matter
is referred to the Minister of National Revenue for
reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the attached
Reasons for Judgment.
The Appellant is awarded party and party
costs.
Signed at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 3rd day of July,
2002.
J.T.C.C.