The Chairman:—This is yet another “farming” appeal and it relates to 1967 and 1968 in respect of which years the appellant claimed deductions of $1,250.97 and $1,815.86, respectively. In March 1970 the Minister ruled that these could not be allowed and were really personal or living expenses that came under paragraph 12(1)(h) of the Income Tax Act.
The facts are simple. In September 1967 the appellant, a full-time employee as a foreman of Douglas Aircraft Co, acquired an interest in 127 acres of farm land in the Township of Caistor, in the County of Simcoe, in partnership with one Joseph Rybak. The partnership was dissolved early in August, 1968, and thereafter the appellant continued to hold the property jointly with a Zdzislaw Chachaj and evidently still does so. The farm was said to consist of 20 acres of pasture, 67 acres of poor quality arable land and 40 acres of bush. The notice of appeal contains the following assertions, among others:
That in the year 1967 the partnership purchased a tractor and I worked partly on the farm.
That in the year 1968, 30 acres of oats were planted, hay was cut on 15 acres, which hay the partnership sold, that one field was rented to neighbour as pasture for cows, that I did personally work on improvement of barn and farm house.
That I resided in Toronto and in order to carry on the farming operations and to work on the farm, it was necessary for me to travel to place of work and stay overnight and my expenses, particularly the travelling expenses and meals, were necessary for these purposes.
Appellant’s oral testimony did little more than merely confirm these allegations. He has a wife and three or four children to support and his income from the employing company, in 1967, was a trifle over $8,400. It appears to me that he had neither the time nor the means to enable him to operate a farm as a side-line of activity. The farm property was an appreciable distance from appellant’s home on Indian Road, Toronto, and the most that appellant could do was what might be termed “long-distance” farming at odd times when his plant duties so permitted. Whatever the appellant’s hopes and in- tentions may have been, there was certainly no likelihood, in my opinion, of ‘‘a reasonable expectation of profit” in 1967 and 1968, when the only revenue was $80 and $815, respectively. In this regard, reference should be had to paragraph 139(1)(ae) of the Act.
It seems to me that the assessors concerned were quite right in assessing as they did with respect to 1967 and 1968 and that, as was said at the termination of the hearing, at Toronto, the appeal only may be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Email this Content