A
W
Prociuk
(orally:
September
17,
1976):—The
appellants,
Courtenay-Comox
Television
Ltd
and
Comox
Reception
Ltd,
appeal
from
the
respondent’s
reassessment
of
their
incomes
for
the
taxation
year
1967
wherein
deductions
for
labour
and
materials
supplied
in
the
operation
of
their
business—the
labour
and
materials
essentially
being
the
lead-ins
from
the
main
television
cable
to
different
residences—
were
disallowed
by
the
respondent
and
capitalized.
At
the
opening
of
the
hearing,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent
agreed
with
the
submission
of
both
appellants
that
the
facts
as
they
are
set
out
in
these
appeals
are
essentially
and
substantially
the
same
as
the
appeals
that
were
heard
in
1969,
that
is,
the
facts
as
then
pleaded
by
the
appellants.
At
that
time,
the
case
involved
the
1962
taxation
year.
Maurice
Boisvert,
Esq,
QC,
of
the
Tax
Appeal
Board,
heard
the
appeals
in
1969,
and
rendered
his
decision
on
March
6,
1969,
a
copy
of
which
I
now
have
before
me.
The
appeals
(Nos
66-54
and
66-55)
were
instituted
in
the
year
1966
and
were
in
respect
of
the
taxation
year
1962.
I
have
read
and
reread
the
decision
of
Mr
Boisvert,
and
find
that
the
facts
in
the
instant
appeals
are
identical
and
substantially
the
same
as
the
facts
in
the
appeals
I
have
referred
to
for
the
year
1962,
with
the
exception
of
costs
in
each
case,
which
have
escalated
somewhat
in
the
5-year
period.
I
cannot
conclude
that
my
colleague
of
the
former
Board
erred
in
his
decision,
which
is
reported
in
[1969]
Tax
ABC
297;
69
DTC
229.
At
page
306
[234]
he
states,
in
part,
as
follows:
From
what
has
been
said
by
Mr
Moncrief
it
appears
to
me
that
the
expenditures
disallowed
by
the
respondent
were
in
the
nature
of
maintenance
of
a
television
system
which
were
related
to
the
earning
process
of
the
appellants.
The
work
done
and
the
material
used
were
quite
precarious.
Therefore,
the
outlays
did
not
represent
a
lasting
asset.
The
installation
had
to
be
changed,
moved
from
one
house
to
another;
from
one
spot
in
a
house
to
another.
Maintenance
represents
the
use
of
a
temporary
and
renewable
activity
to
keep
the
flow
of
income
coming
in.
A
shoe
store
must
keep
a
stock
and
renew
it
to
keep
its
clients
in
line
and
attract
new
ones.
In
television,
the
servicing
of
the
customers,
the
disconnection
of
ceasing
subscribers
and
the
installation
of
new
ones,
the
re-installation
in
an
old
house
or
in
a
newly
built
one,
represents
the
earning
process
of
the
appellants.
Some
of
the
work
done
was
also
in
the
nature
of
repairs
due
to
rust
or
to
other
natural
causes,
storms,
winds,
etc.
It
must
be
borne
in
mind
that
the
appellants
were
selling
a
service.
The
service
had
to
be
kept
in
order.
In
the
case
at
bar
the
work
and
replacements
were
necessary
to
maintain
the
existing
service
and
to
gain
income
therefrom.
Then
he
goes
on
to
quote
certain
cases
which
were
placed
before
him
at
that
time,
and
concludes
by
allowing
both
appeals.
As
I
stated
earlier,
I
see
no
reason
to
differ
from
Mr
Boisvert
in
the
disposition
of
these
appeals,
and
accordingly
the
appeals
will
be
allowed,
and
the
matter
referred
to
the
respondent
for
reassessment.
Appeals
allowed.
Email this Content