Pratte,
J:—The
plaintiff
is
appealing
from
a
decision
of
the
Tax
Review
Board,
which
upheld
the
decision
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
to
add
to
the
declared
income
of
the
plaintiff
for
the
years
1967
and
1968
the
sum
of
$17,230.70
for
1967
and
$21,266.41
for
1968.
The
sums
represent
the
profit
realized
by
the
plaintiff
on
the
sale
of
two
parts
of
an
immovable
which
she
had
purchased
not
long
before.
On
August
18,
1966,
pursuant
to
a
bilateral
promise
of
sale
concluded
the
previous
April,
the
plaintiff,
who
lived
in
Quebec
City,
bought
a
farm
on
which
stood
a
very
old
Canadian
house.
This
farm
was
located
in
the
parish
of
Ste
Anne
de
Beaupré,
not
far
from
Quebec
City
and
a
few
miles
from
the
Mont
Ste
Anne
ski
centre.
With
the
help
of
friends,
the
plaintiff
restored
the
house
she
had
just
bought
and
she
and
her
family
then
used
it
as
a
weekend
cottage
until
the
spring
of
1967.
On
March,
31,
1967
the
plaintiff
sold
the
house
but
kept
most
of
the
farm.
On
July
22,
1968,
at
the
request
of
the
person
who
had
bought
the
house,
she
sold
him
a
piece
of
land
adjoining
that
which
he
had
already
purchased.
The
only
question
raised
by
this
case
is
whether
the
profit
realized
by
the
plaintiff
in
these
two
sales
constitutes
income.
The
principles
which
the
courts
have
to
apply
in
such
cases
are
well
established.
Applying
them
to
the
facts
of
the
case
at
bar,
I
conclude
that
the
plaintiff
must
succeed
if
the
evidence
adduced
indicates
that
she
bought
this
farm
solely
with
the
intention
of
using
it
as
a
place
for
rest
or
recreation.
In
weighing
the
evidence
on
this
point,
I
must
also
bear
in
mind
that
the
plaintiff
has
the
burden
of
showing
that
the
assessments
which
she
attacks
were
erroneous.
After
examining
that
portion
of
the
evidence
submitted
to
the
Tax
Review
Board
which
was
included
in
the
record
by
the
parties,
and
hearing
the
testimony
by
the
plaintiff,
whose
credibility
is
in
my
view
beyond
question,
I
have
come
to
the
following
conclusions:
(1)
The
plaintiff’s
action
in
purchasing
her
farm
was
wholly
foreign
to
her
occupation
of
real
estate
agent;
she
acted
on
that
occasion
on
her
own
behalf,
and
not
for
the
person
to
whom
she
sold
it
a
few
months
later.
(2)
The
plaintiff
did
not
purchase
this
farm
for
resale;
she
bought
it
to
restore
the
old
house
so
that
she
and
her
family
could
use
it
on
weekends
and
holidays.
(3)
Though
the
plaintiff
sold
the
house
and
a
parcel
of
her
land
on
March
31,
1967,
this
was
solely
in
order
to
settle
a
family
dispute.
The
plaintiff’s
husband,
who
had
limited
financial
resources,
could
not
accept
his
wife
being
the
owner
of
a
holiday
cottage
on
which
he
himself
could
not
pay
the
expenses.
(4)
Though
on
July
22,
1968
the
plaintiff
sold
another
parcel
of
land
to
the
person
to
whom
she
had
sold
the
house,
this
was
at
the
latter’s
express
request
as
he
found
the
land
already
sold
to
him
by
the
plaintiff
too
small.
(5)
Whatever
the
plaintiff’s
financial
status
in
1966,
she
believed
at
the
time
of
purchase,
as
she
stated,
that
she
had
sufficient
resources
to
enable
her
to
pay
for
her
purchase.
This
being
my
understanding
of
the
evidence,
it
follows
that
the
profit
realized
by
the
appellant
on
the
sales
of
March
31,
1967
and
July
22,
1968
does
not
constitute
income.
The
appeal
will
therefore
be
allowed
and
the
assessments
of
August
14,
1970
(in
which
the
profit
resulting
from
these
sales
was
added
to
the
plaintiff’s
income)
will
be
referred
back
to
the
Minister
to
be
amended.
The
appellant
will
be
entitled
to
her
costs.
Email this Content