Goetz,
TCJ
[ORALLY]:—This
is
an
appeal
with
respect
to
the
appellant’s
1978
taxation
year.
The
issue
to
be
determined
is
whether
the
appellant
was
a
trader
in
property
and
that
the
acquisition
of
the
property
was
with
a
view
to
turning
it
to
account
for
profit
as
alleged
by
the
Minister.
I
want
to
say
that
after
listening
to
the
witness
this
morning,
I
could
just
see
nothing
but
granting
the
appeal.
I
totally
believe
the
witness.
He
was
clear
and
forthright.
He
did
not
know
the
difference
between
an
option
and
a
first
right.
He
knew
nothing
of
that,
and
certainly
had
none
of
the
earmarks
of
a
trader.
—
The
unsolicited
offer
by
the
Metis
to
purchase
the
property
for
$315,000
was
just
too
good
to
refuse.
—
A
man
would
be
foolish
to
retain
property
on
the
long-range
view
when
he
can
get
cash
in
hand
with
a
substantial
capital
gain.
So,
I
want
to
commend
you
on
your
appreciation
of
the
evidence
Mr
Reynolds.
He
said,
if
discovery
had
been
allowed
in
this
forum,
he
would
have
had
no
hesitation,
as
counsel,
in
recommending
to
the
Minister
that
he
consider
not
opposing
the
appeal.
The
examination
for
discovery
stage
of
any
civil
litigation
is
a
most
vital
step
in
the
whole
matter.
In
other
words,
I
will
put
it
down
in
this
way,
making
note
of
Mr
Reynold’s
comments
that,
in
light
of
the
evidence
heard
to
this
point
in
time
in
the
hearing
and
he
not
having
had
this
available
to
him
prior
to
the
hering,
he
no
longer
wishes
to
oppose
the
appeal
and
I
grant
the
appeal
as
it
is
set
forth.
The
appeal
is
allowed.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content