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.