Delmer
E
Taylor
(orally:
February
17,
1977):—This
is
an
appeal
from
an
income
tax
assessment
by
Harold
Vodden
dealing
with
the
year
1973.
The
matter
at
stake
is
the
amount
of
gain
realized
by
the
appellant
on
the
sale
of
46.807
acres
of
land,
the
appellant
claiming
that
because
of
the
impact
of
Valuation
Day
in
1971,
the
Department
did
not
provide
a
sufficiently
high
value
per
acre
on
the
property
which
he
sold.
Without
going
into
a
great
deal
of
detail,
the
appellant’s
view
of
the
value
per
acre
is
$1,500.
The
respondent’s
value
is
$700
per
acre.
The
appellant’s
major
point
is
that
a
taxpayer’s
reasonable
valuation
should
be
accepted.
The
word
“reasonable”
must
be
determined
and
demonstrated
by
the
facts.
The
evidence
supports
the
conclusion
that
the
appellant
held
out
for
a
selling
price
for
his
land
until
he
had
been
offered
a
price
consistent
with
his
opinions
at
the
time
of
sale.
This
is
perfectly
legitimate
and
straightforward.
There
is
nothing
to
indicate
that
he
was
under
any
pressure
to
sell
the
land
or
had
any
problems
in
retaining
it.
Under
the
circumstances,
since
all
the
land
surrounding
his
had
been
sold
prior
to
his
sale
and
there
had
been
several
other
sales
in
the
area,
the
appellant’s
contention
that
the
value
of
his
land
only
increased
from
his
estimate
of
$1,500
per
acre
in
December
1971
to
the
final
net
selling
price
of
$1,660
per
acre
in
October
1973,
almost
two
years
later,
is
difficult
to
accept.
This
increase
of
$160
per
acre,
or
about
10%
in
the
two
years
would
probably
be
considerably
lower
than
any
increase
in
value
of
any
land
in
the
Ottawa
area
during
the
period—without
taking
into
account
the
possibility,
even
the
suspicion,
that
may
have
been
held
that
there
was
a
generally
large
major
land
assembly
in
progress
in
the
area.
In
view
of
the
character
of
the
land,
it
is
unlikely
that
anyone
would
in
fact
have
been
interested
in
buying
such
a
particular
parcel
of
property
by
itself
in
1971
(46
acres,
with
only
a
66-foot
road
access),
with
the
buildings
and
almost
all
the
road
frontage
being
retained
by
the
vendor,
now
the
appellant.
There
is
no
evidence
that
anyone,
under
any
reasonable
circumstances,
would
have
wanted
to
buy
the
land
unless
the
imagined
purchaser
wished
back-area,
heavily
wooded
land
that
had
no
immediate,
or
even
short-term
future
use
and
had
produced
nothing
in
terms
of
income
in
about
40
years.
The
value
of
the
land
in
1973,
even
if
it
was
not
being
considered
as
part
of
a
land
assembly
programme,
has
no
relationship
to
what
value
it
would
have
had
in
retrospect
on
the
open
market
in
1971.
There
is
no
reason
to
conclude
that
the
amount
of
$1,500
per
acre
attributed
by
the
appellant
to
his
property
for
the
year
1971
was
based
on
anything
but
personal
and
historical
value
to
him.
This
amount
of
$1,500
per
acre
cannot
be
realistically
related
to
an
average
of
comparable
sales
nor
to
potential
use
in
1971.
The
professional
appraiser
for
the
respondent
has
presented
a
well-documented
and
complete
basis
for
the
amount
attributed
to
the
land
in
question
on
Valuation
Day.
There
is
no
basis
to
presume
that,
given
all
these
circumstances
and
facts,
the
land
had
a
value
on
Valuation
Day
in
excess
of
that
given
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
certainly
not
the
$1,500
per
acre
claimed
by
the
appellant.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content