The taxpayer rented out 1/2 of an unusual structure which was analogous to a duplex but which had a common basement and a window connecting the adjoining kitchens. In light of the facts that the building "could, and did, house separate families, who had separate facilities, and paid for separate services," only 1/2 of the building was held to be the "housing unit" of the taxpayer. The Minister's allocation of 1/2 of the underlying land to the taxpayer's principal residence was not shown to be unreasonable.
Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
338141
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>The Queen v. Mitosinka</em></strong>, 78 DTC 6432, [1978] CTC 664 (FCTD)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>The Queen v. Mitosinka</em></strong>, 78 DTC 6432, [1978] CTC 664 (FCTD)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}