A corporation, which was owned by the taxpayer, leased a building from him and made an addition to it. It was found that since it was anticipated that the addition would be removed or demolished at the termination of the tenancy, no benefit had been conferred on the taxpayer.
Topics and taglines
Tagline
no benefit if improvement to be demolished on reversion
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
334326
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a id=\"Ginter\"></a>The Queen v. Ginter</em></strong>, 77 DTC 5274, [1977] CTC 418 (FCA) <strong>[no benefit if improvement to be demolished on reversion]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a id=\"Ginter\"></a>The Queen v. Ginter</em></strong>, 77 DTC 5274, [1977] CTC 418 (FCA) <strong>[no benefit if improvement to be demolished on reversion]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}