Her Majesty the Queen v. Montreal Trust Company, Administrator of the Estate of Eli Prelutsky, Deceased, [1976] CTC 499, 76 DTC 6355

By services, 24 November, 2022
Is tax content
Tax Content (confirmed)
Citation
Citation name
[1976] CTC 499
Citation name
76 DTC 6355
Decision date
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
664936
Extra import data
{
"field_court_parentheses": "",
"field_external_guid": [],
"field_full_style_of_cause": "Her Majesty the Queen, Appellant, and Montreal Trust Company, Administrator of The",
"field_import_body_hash": "",
"field_informal_procedure": false,
"field_year_parentheses": "",
"field_source_url": ""
}
Style of cause
Her Majesty the Queen v. Montreal Trust Company, Administrator of the Estate of Eli Prelutsky, Deceased
Main text

Pratte, J (concurred in by Urie, J and Smith, DJ) (judgment delivered from the Bench: December 2, 1975):—The sole issue for determination in this appeal is whether, under the provisions of section 9 of the Estate Tax Act (Statutes of Canada 1958, c 29, as amended) the common shares of BC Glass and Lumber Ltd, which passed on the death of Eli Prelutsky, were situated in the Province of British Columbia or in the Province of Saskatchewan. The Trial Division held that they were situated in British Columbia and this appeal is directed against that decision.

In our view, the facts of this case are not distinguishable from those the Supreme Court of Canada had to consider in Schiller Estate v MNR, [1969] SCR 732; [1969] CTC 348; 69 DTC 5256. The persuasive argument put forward by Mr Mitchell to the effect that the articles of association of the company had been tacitly amended could, equally, in our view, have been raised in the Schiller case. In those circumstances, we feel bound to hold that the situs of the shares here in question was in the Province of Saskatchewan.

For these reasons, theappealwill be allowed with costs.