Cassidy v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1336 [at at 4287], 2010 TCC 471 -- summary under Paragraph 40(2)(b)

By services, 28 November, 2015

The taxpayer sold his six-acre rural property after it was rezoned for residential use as a result of an application made on behalf of owners of adjacent properties. The taxpayer argued that the whole of the six acres was eligible for the principal residence capital gains exemption: when he bought the property, it could not be further subdivided; accordingly, the entire property was "necessary to the use and enjoyment" of the residence.

Favreau J. found that the taxpayer's exemption was limited, in accordance with paragraph (e) of the principal residence definition, to a half-hectare that included the house. The determination under paragraph (e) is to be made at the time of disposition of the property, and at that time the taxpayer's premise, that subdivision was impossible, was no longer correct.

Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
337950
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Cassidy v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2010 DTC 1336 [at 4287], 2010 TCC 471",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}