CARTWRIGHT, J. (all concur) :—This is an appeal from a judgment of Noël, J. allowing the respondent’s appeal from the assessments of income tax made for its 1957 and 1958 taxation years.
The question for decision is whether profits of $703,636 realized in 1957 and $63,932 realized in 1958 on the acquisition and sale by the respondent of shares in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and Quebec Natural Gas Corporation were income from a business within the meaning of Sections 3, 4 and 139(1) (e) of the Income Tax Act, as is contended by the appellant, or were realization of an enhancement in the value of investments held by the respondent, as found by the learned trial judge.
It is not questioned that the primary activities of the respondent are those of a bona fide investment company but counsel for the appellant argues that the particular transactions, out of which the profit sought to be taxed arose, were speculations constituting adventures in the nature of a trade.
The question is essentially one of fact depending on the intention with which the respondent acquired the shares.
The learned trial judge has set out the relevant facts in detail and has made reference to several passages in the evidence. I do not find it necessary to repeat these. I am satisfied that the learned trial judge gave full consideration to all the circumstances relied upon by the appellant and having done so he reached the conclusion that the shares in question were acquired by the respondent as investments to be held as a source of income in the ordinary course of its business as an investment company and that the reason it decided to realize these investments after a comparatively short period of time was that, in the opinion of its responsible officers, the shares had reached a price which was unrealistically high.
If this finding of fact is accepted, no question of law arises. A perusal of the record in the light of the full and able arguments addressed to us satisfies me that this finding was right.
For the reasons given by Noël, J. and those briefly stated above, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.