John B Goetz:—This is an appeal heard at the sittings of the Board in Penticton, British Columbia on June 3, 1980, whereby the appellant has appealed against reassessments for the 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976 taxation years. Specifically, the Minister of National Revenue gave the following explanation for the reassessments:
. . . the profits from the sale of land in the amounts of $5,943.48 in 1973, $9,709.68 in 1975, $2,440 in 1976, and the loss of $1,740.55 in 1974, have been correctly included in or deducted from income in each of the respective years in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3 and 9 of the Act.
In so assessing the appellant, the respondent relied, inter alia, upon sections 3, 9 and subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63 as amended.
This appeal was heard on common evidence with the appeals of Thomas J Collins, K Mary C Collins and Gloria Lim.
Facts
The appellant was a medical doctor, specializing in dermatology in the City of Kelowna, British Columbia, since 1952. He was a close friend of Dr Lim, the husband of Mrs Gloria Lim, one of the appellants, and was also quite friendly with Mrs Gloria Lim. He knew that in 1960 Mrs Lim had purchased 60 acres of vineyard in Kelowna near a lake, which vineyard was sold in 1971 to the operator of the farm. In 1960, with Dr Lim, he built a medical office for himself, Lim and other doctors. Lim apparently moved out after ten years. In 1965 he was involved in a winery purchase on the west bank of Mission Hill, having an 8% interest. He states that he had inconclusive discussions with Thomas J Collins re the farm (Davis’). They were close friends and he visited the Collins at Lavington Stock Farm regularly. His children rode Mrs Collins’ horses. The aforesaid vineyard was sold and $25,000 was the gain derived therefrom. He states that he was not interested in the money aspects of the purchase of the Davis land but as a place of recreation where he could find peace in a cabin near a beautiful river camp. He referred to it as a dream farm and ranch and a thing of beauty—“Canada”. As mentioned in the reasons for judgment in Thomas J Collins v MNR, the Davis farm was split into three parts, the home farm adjoining the river, then rising on a hillside was range land and the top would be rocky bluff. I am sure all aspects of the purchase were discussed between Dr Holmes and Thomas J Collins as the land was put up for sale within a year of purchase.
I feel that the reasons for judgment as set out in the Thomas J Collins decision (supra) apply with equal force to the appeal of Dr Holmes. In light of this finding, I dismiss the appeal accordingly.
Appeal dismissed.
Email this Content