Hogen J. found that the taxpayers' reassessment under s. 256(2.1) was justified, given that (para. 15):
The evidence shows that the two corporate appellants use the same staff to meet their administrative service needs. Each bears half the expenses, salaries and other administrative costs. They share the premises where they are each headquartered, though each signed a lease under which they paid a separate rent for the premises in question. In addition, both had the same phone and fax number during the period in issue.
He went on to state (at para. 25):
[T]axpayers' appeals tend to succeed when they provide evidence that, on a balance of probabilities, the reason for the existence of the two corporations is asset protection, activity diversification, decentralization for greater profit, a spouse's intent to operate his or her own business, or estate planning, to cite some examples.