Bell
T.CJ.:
I
have
no
doubt
that
the
Appellant
should
succeed
in
this
appeal.
I
heard
no
persuasive
argument
as
to
why
he
was
re-assessed.
His
evidence
was
clear
as
to
why
he
purchased
this
property.
His
evidence
was
clear
as
to
the
thoroughness
of
the
research
undertaken
by
him
before
he
purchased
the
property.
His
evidence
was
clear
as
to
the
factors
that
adversely
affected
the
early
successful
operation
of
his
venture.
His
evidence
was
clear
as
to
what
he
did
to
reverse
the
trend
of
the
increasing
expenses
and
what
he
did
to
increase
his
income.
He
was
frank
to
describe
his
limited
personal
use
of
this
property
and
that
negates
any
value
that
might
be
attributed
to
Respondent
counsel’s
implication
that
because
of
skiing
there
was
a
greater
personal
use
of
it.
He
was
fair
in
his
statement
that
he
contemplates
further
real
estate
development,
and
I
accept
all
that
evidence
without
reservation.
He
impresses
me
as
a
professional
who
is
very
organized
and
a
clearly
directed
man.
There
was
no
evidence
to
counter
anything
that
he
said.
In
spite
of
the
fact
that
Respondent’s
counsel
said
she
was
not
going
to
raise
the
matter
of
personal
and
living
expenses
I
want
to
make
reference
to
that
phrase
which
was
used
in
the
notification
and
the
confirmation
that
was
sent
to
the
Appellant
and
also
used
in
the
Reply
to
the
Notice
of
Appeal
Because
that
phrase
which
is
defined
in
Section
240
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
reads
in
part
as
follows:
Personal
or
living
expenses
includes
the
expenses
of
properties
maintained
by
any
person
for
the
use
or
benefit
of
the
taxpayer
or
any
person
connected
with
the
taxpayer
by
blood
relationship,
marriage
or
adoption
and
not
maintained
in
connection
with
a
business
carried
on
for
profit
or
with
a
reasonable
expectation
of
profit.
There
are
two
components
in
that
definition.
The
first
is
that
it
is
maintained
for
the
use
of
the
taxpayer.
The
second
is,
because
it
is
conjunctive
and
connected
with
the
word
“and”
not
maintained
with
a
view
to
profit,
there
is
absolutely
no,
no,
no
in
my
opinion
ability
to
infer
from
the
evidence
I
have
heard
that
this
Appellant
purchased
that
property
for
personal
use
-
none
whatsoever.
That
leaves
us
with
no
strength
in
that
argument
of
personal
and
living
expenses
which
is
maybe
why
Respondent’s
counsel
abandoned
it.
That
leaves
us
with
the
question
of
whether
or
not
he
went
into
this
venture
for
gaining
or
producing
income.
Having
regard
to
the
evidence
I
can
come
to
no
other
conclusion
than
that
he
did
exactly
that.
Frankly,
I
am
a
bit
surprised
almost
to
the
point
of
astonishment
that
this
assessment
was
made.
The
notification
of
confirmation
is
dated
May
19th,
1994
and
I
of
course
observed
that
it
is
with
respect
to
the
1991
and
1992
taxation
years.
By
that
time
there
may
have
been
more
information
available
had
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
sought
to
obtain
it.
For
these
reasons
I
allow
the
appeal
with
costs.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content