The
Chairman:—The
appeals
of
Mr
Andrew
Wynnyk,
Mr
J
P
Wynnyk
and
Mr
Nicholas
Sloboda
from
income
tax
assessments
in*
respect
of
the
1974
taxation
year
as
well
as
the
appeal
of
Mr
William
Sych
and
Mr
Alex
Lesiw
from
assessments
in
respect
of
the
1975
taxation
year
were,
by
consent,
heard
on
common
evidence.
All
the
appellants
appeared
on
their
own
behalf.
ri
In
the
case
of
Mr
William
Sych,
there
is
on
file
a
letter
dated
May
23,
1978,
addressed
to
the
Registrar
of
the
Tax
Review
Board
which
reads
as
follows:
May
23,
1978
Registrar
Tax
Review
Board
Re:
Wm
Sych
Appeal
For
medical
reasons
this
person
is
unable
to
appear
at
the
hearings
and
is
agreeable
to
be
bound
by
the
decision
concluded
for
other
appeals
of
Trident
syndicate.
I
have
been
authorized
by
Wm
Sych
to
submit
this
letter
on
his
behalf.
(signed)
O.
Eveneshen
O.
Eveneshen
for
Wm
Sych
Counsel
for
the
respondent
was
aware
of
the
appellant’s
wish
and
confirmed
to
the
Board
that
Mr
William
Sych
agreed
to
be
bound
by
the
Board’s
decision
in
the
appeals
of
the
other
above-named
appellants.
Mr
Alex
Lesiw,
after
having
been
present
in
court
while
Mr
Andrew
Wynnyk,
Mr
J
P
Wynnyk
and
Mr
Nicholas
Sloboda
gave
their
evidence,
stated
on
taking
the
witness
stand
that
he
withdrew
his
appeal.
However,
he
asked
that
his
share
of
the
profit
realized
from
the
sale
of
the
subject
land
be
divided
between
his
wife
and
himself.
The
Board
was
not
in
a
position
to
accede
to
such
a
request,
however,
counsel
for
the
respondent
suggested
that
he
could
see
no
objection
to
doing
so
if
the
facts
justified
such
an
assessment.
Although
the
amounts
involved
may
differ
for
each
appellant,
the
issue
in
the
above
appeals
are
identical
and
it
is
whether
the
share
of
the
profits
realized
by
each
of
the
appellants
from
the
disposition
of
certain
lands
is
income
or
a
Capital
gain.
Neither
Mr
Andrew
Wynnyk,
a
wage
earner;
Mr
J
P
Wynnyk,
a
teacher;
Mr
Nicholas
Sloboda
nor
Mr
William
Sych
can,
from
the
evidence
adduced,
be
said
to
have
had
a
history
of
trading
in
land
and
in
the
absence
of
any
other
evidence
one
can
assume
that
for
each
appellant
the
purchase
and
sale
of
land
was
an
isolated
transaction.
All
the
appellants
allege
that
their
intention
in
acquiring
their
respective
plot
of
land
was
either
for
investment
purposes
for
early
retirement,
for
farming
it
or
for
the
financial
security
to
be
found
in
the
possession
of
land.
There
is
on
record,
filed
as
Exhibit
A-1,
a
receipt
from
Star
Agencies
Ltd
whereby
Star
Agencies
Ltd
acknowledges
having
received
an
amount
of
$2,000
for
5%
of
78.65
acres
of
land,
Sec
S
/2
-
NE
29
-
Twp
52
-
Rge
25
W
of
4th,
balance
to
be
paid
over
8
years
or
sooner.
The
receipt
was
made
out
to
Julian
Wynnyk.
However,
the
name
of
Andrew
Wynnyk
appears
to
have
been
added
to
the
document.
On
July
31,
1964,
Julian
G
Koziak,
a
barrister
and
solicitor
in
Edmonton
acting
on
behalf
of
a
group
of
persons,
made
an
offer
to
purchase
from
Cecilia
Solikoski
the
above-mentioned
78.65
acres
of
land
for
a
price
of
$80,000,
(Exhibit
R-1).
On
May
25,
1965,
an
agreement
was
signed
for
the
formation
of
a
Syndicate
to
be
known
as
the
Trident
syndicate,
the
objects
of
which
were:
Exhibit
R-2
SYNDICATE
AGREEMENT,
page
2,
paragraph
4
OBJECTS:
To
hold
the
said
lands
on
behalf
of
the
members
of
the
syndicate
and
generally
to
do
all
things
relating
to
the
said
lands
and
if
necessary
to
dispose
of
the
said
lands,
or
a
portion
thereof,
for
the
mutual
benefit
of
all
the
members
of
the
syndicate.
Among
the
members
who
signed
the
syndicate
agreement
are
listed
Mr
Julian
Wynnyk
as
having
paid
$2,000
and
holding
2
shares
of
the
syndicate’s
80
shares;
Andrew
Wynnyk
as
having
paid
$2,000
and
holding
2
shares;
Nicholas
Sloboda
as
having
paid
$2,000
and
holding
4
shares,
(Exhibit
R-2).
It
is
admitted
that
Mr
William
Sych,
who
may
have
acquired
his
share
subsequently,
held
1
/2
shares
of
the
Syndicates
80
shares.
The
statement
of
income
of
the
Trident
syndicate
indicates
that
for
the
years
ended
May
31,
1965,
through
to
1973,
the
expenses
and
development
costs
were
much
in
excess
of
the
$3,000
rental
income
derived
from
the
land,
(Exhibit
R-3).
In
February
of
1974,
23
acres
of
the
78.65
acres
of
land
owned
by
the
Syndicate
were
sold
for
$363,377.
In
June
of
1974,
20
additional
acres
of
the
said
land
were
sold
for
$350,000.
Mr
Andrew
Wynnyk,
with
2
shares
of
the
syndicate,
realized
a
profit
of
$7,853.42;
Mr
J
P
Wynnyk
also
with
his
2
shares
of
the
syndicate
realized
a
profit
of
$7,853.42;
Mr
Nicholas
Sloboda
with
4
shares
of
the
Syndicate
realized
a
profit
of
$15,706.84
from
the
first
sale;
Mr
William
Sych
with
11/2
shares
of
the
syndicate
realized
a
profit
of
$5,731.29
from
the
second
sale.
All
the
appellants
who
made
a
point
of
stating
that
they
were
not
traders
in
land
claimed
that
their
intention
in
acquiring
their
respective
portion
of
the
land
was
as
a
long-term
capital
investment
and
that
none
of
the
appellants
had
any
intention
at
the
time
of
acquisition
of
reselling
the
land.
The
appellants’
declared
intention,
however,
is
in
no
way
consistent
with
the
facts
and
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
purchase
of
the
78.65
acres
of
undivided
land
by
a
trustee
for
a
group
of
persons
including
the
appellants
and
the
formation
of
a
Syndicate
whose
object
was
to
hold
the
land
to
dispose
of
it
in
the
interest
of
the
members
of
the
syndicate
and
where
the
division
of
the
profits
realized
by
the
syndicate
is
specifically
provided.
The
land
was
undivided
and
the
members
held
shares
in
the
syndicate
who
collectively
owned
the
land.
From
all
the
evidence
adduced,
including
Exhibits
R-1
to
R-14,
it
is
clear
that
the
object,
purpose,
and
intention
of
the
syndicate
was
to
speculate
in
vacant
land
at
a
time
when
surrounding
land
was
being
developed.
Nowhere
in
any
of
the
minutes
of
meetings
of
Trident
syndicate,
attended
by
the
appellants,
was
there
any
serious
proposal
for
the
development
of
the
land
as
a
long-term
investment,
nor
was
there
any
indication
that
the
land
would
be
divided
so
that
the
appellants
might
own
the
acreage
they
claim
they
purchased
for
the
purpose
of
enjoying
the
use
and
the
security
of
being
landowners.
The
income
from
the
78.65
acres
was
$3,000
a
year
which
is
Insignificant
compared
to
the
price
of
$80,000
by
some
30
members
of
the
Trident
syndicate.
In
alleging
that
their
intention
was
very
different
from
that
of
the
other
members
of
the
syndicate
and
in
claiming
that
their
intention
was
for
a
long-term
investment,
the
appellants
admit
that
the
intention
of
the
syndicate
was
to
speculate
in
vacant
land.
No
one
forced
the
appellants
to
enter
into
or
to
remain
in
the
syndicate
if
their
alleged
intention
of
acquiring,
using,
and
enjoying
their
respective
acreage
was
thwarted
by
declared
objects
of
the
syndicate
in
acquiring
the
land.
Instead,
the
appellants
remained
in
the
syndicate
and
some
of
them
moved
or
seconded
motions
in
the
administration
of
the
syndicate
which,
as
I
have
already
stated,
purchased
raw
land
for
the
purpose
of
holding
it
until
a
substantial
profit
could
be
realized,
as
indeed
it
was,
from
its
resale.
The
burden
of
establishing,
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Board,
that
their
intention
at
the
time
of
acquisiiton
of
their
share
of
the
land
in
the
Syndicate
was
to
make
a
long-term
capital
investment
rests
on
the
appellants.
This
they
have
utterly
failed
to
do.
On
the
basis
of
the
evidence
adduced
there
is
no
doubt
in
my
mind
that
all
the
appellants
are
associated
with
the
syndicate
which
I
hold
made
a
speculative
purchase
of
raw
land,
held
it
for
some
ten
years
and
then
sold
it
at
a
profit.
All
the
appellants,
therefore,
also
engaged
in
an
adventure
in
the
nature
of
trade.
Whether
the
syndicate
and/or
the
appellants
held
the
land
for.
1
year
or
for
20
years,
if,
as
in
these
appeals,
the
intention
in
acquiring
the
land
was
for
resale
at
a
profit,
the
nature
of
the
transaction
remains,
nevertheless,
an
adventure
in
the
nature
of
trade
and
is
not
a
long-term
capital
investment.
I
hold,
therefore,
that
the
respective
profits
realized
by
each
of
the
appellants
as
a
result
of
the
disposition
by
the
Syndicate
of
their
share
of
the
said
property
is
income
in
their
hands.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content