Date: 20080604
Dockets: A-178-07
A-179-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 204
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
A-178-07
BETWEEN:
LARRY ST-PIERRE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-179-07
BETWEEN:
YVAN LAFONTAINE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Hearing held at
Montréal
,
Quebec
, on
June
4, 2008
.
Judgment delivered from the bench at
Montréal
,
Quebec
, on
June
4, 2008
.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
Date: 20080604
Dockets: A-178-07
A-179-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 204
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
A-178-07
BETWEEN:
LARRY ST-PIERRE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-179-07
BETWEEN:
YVAN LAFONTAINE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at
Montréal
,
Quebec
, on
June 4, 2008
)
NOËL J.A.
[1]
These are two appeals against two decisions by Justice Tardif of the Tax Court of Canada, who confirmed the assessments issued by the Minister of National Revenue, who under subsection 74.2(1) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) reattributed to the appellants the gains realized by their spouses from the sale of some shares.
[3]
According to the appellants, Justice Tardif did not consider the fact that the initial transfer of the appellants’ shares to their management companies, which shares were later transferred to their respective spouses, took place in the context of a reorganization which was intended to account for their different financial needs.
[4]
The appellants essentially argue that with regard to both subsections 74.2(1) and 74.5(6) of the Act, the notion of a “series of transactions”, as defined by subsection 248(10) of the Act, should be taken into consideration. This notion presumes the existence of pre-ordained transactions, and according to the appellants, the required intention was not demonstrated before Justice Tardif, as the initial transfer of shares was made for a purpose other than splitting an eventual gain.
[5]
As we pointed out at the hearing, the notion of a “series of transactions” does not appear anywhere, neither in subsection 74.2(1) nor in subsection 74.5(6). A reading of these provisions reveals that what is important is the fact that the shares that belonged to the appellant were ultimately transferred to their spouses.
[6]
But even if we recognized that intention might be relevant in some circumstances, the burden in that respect was still upon the appellants, and one cannot, on the basis of the record as it stands, exclude the possibility—if not the probability—that, from the outset, the appellants saw an opportunity to split the capital gain inherent in their shares.
“Marc Noël”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: A-178-07, A-179-07
APPEAL FROM TWO JUDGMENTS OF JUSTICE TARDIF OF THE TAX COURT OF Canada, DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2007, DOCKET NOS. 2004‑2219(IT)G
AND
2004‑2211(IT)G.
STYLE OF CAUSE: A-178-07
Larry St-Pierre v. Her Majesty the Queen
A-179-07
Yvan Lafontaine v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING:
Montréal
,
Quebec
DATE OF HEARING:
June 4, 2008
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NOËL J.A.
DATED:
June 4, 2008
APPEARANCES:
| Pierre Bordeleau
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
| Anne Poirier
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Lambert Therrien Bordeleau Soucy
Shawinigan
,
Quebec
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
| John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of
Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content