Desjardins
J.A.:
This
is
an
appeal
from
a
decision
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
which
allowed
as
business
expenses
under
paragraph
18(1
)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
an
amount
of
$269,629.69
imposed
on
the
respondent
by
the
British
Columbia
Egg
Marketing
Board,
as
an
over
quota
levy
with
legal
expenses
and
interest
expenses
associated
with
the
levy,
thereby
allowing
the
respondent’s
appeal
from
an
assessment
made
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
with
respect
to
the
respondent’s
1985,
1988
and
1989
taxation
years.
We
are
all
of
the
view
that
whatever
characterization
is
given
to
the
over
quota
levy
imposed
by
the
marketing
board,
such
levies
are
meant
to
carry
out
the
purpose
of
the
scheme,
which
is
inter
alia
the
orderly
production
of
natural
products
in
the
province.
The
decision
of
this
Court
in
Amway
stands
for
the
proposition
that
business
is
to
be
carried
on
without
any
infraction
to
the
law.
There
is
no
doubt
in
the
case
at
bar
that
the
respondent
could
have
carried
on
his
business
in
such
a
way
as
to
avoid
the
above-normal
excess
of
layers
he
admitted
having
pursued
intentionally.
There
is
moreover
a
strong
public
policy
argument
to
be
made
so
as
to
preclude
the
respondent
from
claiming
as
business
expenses
the
over
quota
levies
he
incurred.
It
is
clearly
inconsistent
with
the
purpose
of
such
a
marketing
scheme
if
producers
are
able
to
take
action
similar
to
that
of
the
respondent
and
sucessfully
claim
as
business
expenses
levies
encountered
in
excess
of
permissible
allotments.
The
appeal
will
be
allowed,
with
costs,
the
decision
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
will
be
set
aside,
and
the
appeal
of
the
respondent
with
regard
to
the
Minister’s
assessments
for
the
taxation
years
1985,
1988
and
1989
will
be
dismissed.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content