A W Prociuk:—The point to determine in this appeal is whether or not the appellant during the years 1966 and 1967 carried on the business of farming with a reasonable expectation of profit and was entitled to deduct his farming expenses from his other income.
The case was heard on June 7, 1971 at a hearing held in the City of Regina, in the Province of Saskatchewan, at which the presiding member was J O Weldon, Esquire, QC, then a member of the Tax Appeal Board which, on December 15, 1971, became the Tax Review Board. However, judgment was reserved and no decision rendered by him prior to his retirement from the Board in March of 1972. Accordingly, by consent of both parties, this Board has now been given jurisdiction to issue its decision and judgment on the basis of the transcript of the evidence and the argument taken before Mr Weldon, without further representation by counsel.
The facts are brief and not in dispute. The appellant was born and raised on a farm in the Esterhazy district, Saskatchewan and from his earliest years yearned to be a farmer. In 1959, at age 19, he acquired an interest in a farm with his father’s assistance and from then continued to increase his equity in the land and to acquire personal property yearly. At date of this hearing (June 1971) his herd of caitle alone was estimated to be worth $10,000 in addition to other farm property which he accumulated. In the years in question he worked at other employments and used that income to improve and enlarge his farming operation. He has continued to do so ever since. It is not unreasonable to expect that in a very near future the size of his farming operation will be so extensive that he will be obliged to devote all his time to it. While we are not concerned with other years of his operations, it is, however, of some assistance in determining what his expectation was.
It is noted that at the hearing the farming expenses for the years in question were not fully determined. At page 101 of the transcript agreement was reached by the parties that, if the appellant succeeded in his appeal, the question of specific expenditures is to be referred back to the Minister for final determination of same with the appellant.
The evidence, in my opinion, clearly establishes the appellant’s case and the appeal, accordingly, is allowed. Pursuant to the agreement referred to above, there will be an order that the question of farming expenses in the years 1966 and 1967 be referred back to the Minister for determination and for necessary adjustments resulting therefrom.
Appeal allowed.