Marceau J.A.:
We are all of the view that this appeal, against a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, cannot succeed.
There was only one issue before the Tax Court and that was whether the debt owed by the appellant to the Royal Bank of Canada had been settled by the agreement of April 12, 1988 within the meaning of section 80 of the Income Tax Act. In spite of his efforts and the quality of his presentation, counsel for the appellant has not been able to convince us that we could interfere with the understanding that the Tax Court judge took of this agreement and the meaning he assigned to its clauses. His essential and overall finding that the agreement was not a mere “stand still agreement” or an “agreement merely not to pursue,” as contended by counsel, but rather a final one, that was meant to “settle the matter” definitely “a finding that involved, not only a careful analysis of the wording of the agreement and the inter-relation of its various clauses, but also an assessment of the intention of the parties drawn from the factual circumstances and their statements at trial ” cannot be reviewed by us without compelling reasons. We do not have those reasons. That the debt was not meant to subsist after the payment of the $105,000 by Mr. Capozzi and the transfer of the assets of the company, or put another way that the subsistence of the debt was only subject to the payment and the transfer, is a conclusion that we consider binding on us.
The appeal, therefore, will be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Email this Content