Plamondon v. The Queen, 2011 DTC 1137 [at at 746], 2011 TCC 47 (Informal Procedure) -- summary under Personal-Use Property

By services, 28 November, 2015

Hogan J found that dried insects donated by the taxpayer to Laval University were individually appraised and did not "form an unbreakable set," and thus were not a set (as per s. 46(3)), so that under s. 46(1), each insect had an adjusted cost base of $1,000. Before so concluding, he disagreed with the expansive interpretation of personal-use property in Klotz, stating (at para. 15):

In English, the ITA uses the word "primarily". The Oxford English Dictionary, third edition, defines "primarily" as follows: "to a great or the greatest degree; for the most part, mainly". Thus, the property must unequivocally be for the use and enjoyment of the taxpayer. If Parliament had wanted there to be only two types of property, it could have defined PUP as all property that is not income property However, that was not what Parliament did.

Here, the taxpayer "prepared them only for donation. There was no real use" (para. 19) (after citing Glaxo Wellcome as to "use").

Topics and taglines
Tagline
each donated dried insect was separate property
Words and phrases
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
338140
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Plamondon\"></a>Plamondon v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2011 DTC 1137 [at 746], 2011 TCC 47 (Informal Procedure)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}
Workflow properties
Workflow state