Dubé,
J:—The
plaintiff
is
a
Canadian
corporation
operating
grain
elevators
at
Bassin
Louise,
Québec
City.
In
the
course
of
the
taxation
years,
1977,
1978
and
1979
it
improved
its
discharging
facilities
by
constructing
new
“shipping
galleries”
consisting
of
a
superstructure
built
on
a
wharf,
covered
conveyor
belts
to
carry
the
grain
from
the
elevators
to
the
ships,
and
dust
removing
equipment
to
reduce
pollution
and
the
risk
of
explosion.
The
total
cost
of
the
project
completed
in
1979
was
$8,285,715.
In
computing
its
income
tax
payable
the
taxpayer
claimed
the
investment
tax
credit
provided
under
the
provisions
of
section
127
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
in
the
aggregate
amount
of
$571,731
which
amount
was
disallowed
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue.
The
Minister
submits
that
the
galleries
are
not
“qualified
property”
within
the
meaning
of
subsection
127(10)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
not
having
been
acquired
by
the
plaintiff
to
be
used
in
Canada
“primarily
for
the
purpose
of
the
storing
of
grain”
and
therefore
that
the
amount
claimed
does
not
qualify
under
the
provisions
of
subparagraph
127(10)(c)(ix).
The
Minister
submits
that
the
galleries
were
constructed
for
the
express
and
avowed
purpose
of
shipping
grain,
which
is
specifically
excluded
under
subparagraph
127(11)
(b)(i),
“storing
(other
than
the
storing
of
grain),
shipping,
selling
and
leasing
of
finished
goods”.
In
a
nutshell,
the
issue
to
be
determined
here
is
whether
or
not
the
so-
called
“shipping
galleries”
were
constructed
primarily
for
the
storing,
or
for
the
shipping
of
grain.
In
my
view,
the
evidence
at
the
trial,
including
a
view
of
photographs
of
the
facilities,
leads
inescapably
to
the
conclusion
that
the
galleries
were
erected
for
the
express
purpose
of
shipping
grain.
The
Bunge
elevators
stand
some
200
feet
from
the
edge
of
the
wharf
where
ships
dock
to
discharge
and
to
load
grain,
the
subsoil
under
the
wharf
being
too
soft
for
the
wharf
to
support
the
elevators.
Special
machinery
is
required
to
offload
grain
from
incoming
ships
(mostly
from
Western
Canada)
which
grain
is
elevated
to
and
stored
in
the
elevators,
later
to
be
lowered
and
discharged
from
storage
into
outward-bound
ships
(mostly
overseas).
The
facilities
we
are
concerned
with
are
used
for
discharging
the
grain
from
the
elevators
into
the
outgoing
vessels.
These
discharging
facilities
are
separate
and
different
from
the
equipment
used
to
offload
the
grain
from
incoming
vessels
and
from
the
equipment
used
to
elevate
the
grain
into
the
elevators.
The
shipping
galleries
serve
to
discharge
the
grain
from
the
elevators
into
the
holds
of
outward-bound
vessels.
Obviously,
the
plaintiff
in
order
to
operate
his
business
must
have
the
capability
to
offload
grain
from
incoming
vessels
as
well
as
the
capability
to
load
grain
into
outgoing
vessels.
It
must
also
have
the
facilities
to
store
the
grain.
Those
are
three
separate
operations.
It
cannot
be
said
that
the
equipment
used
for
taking
the
grain
out
for
shipping
is
itself
“primarily
for
the
purpose
of
the
storing
of
grain”.
The
obvious
conclusion
is
that
the
shipping
galleries
are
primarily
used
for
the
shipping
of
grain
on
board
outbound
vessels.
Section
127
is
an
exemption
section
which
must
be
strictly
construed
and
the
taxpayer
must
fit
his
claim
squarely
within
the
four
corners
of
the
exemption
in
order
to
benefit
from
it.
The
old
principle
still
applies:
taxation
is
the
rule
and
exemption
is
the
exception.
This
action
therefore
is
dismissed
with
costs.
Email this Content