Hammill v. Canada, 2005 DTC 5397, 2005 FCA 252 -- summary under Business Source/Reasonable Expectation of Profit

By services, 28 November, 2015

The taxpayer was a co-owner in a clothing manufacturing company. He acquired a gem inventory over several years. A business contact informed him of an interested offshore purchaser, and offered to sell the gems on his behalf at approximately a tenfold profit in exchange for substantial up-front fees, variously described as performance bonds, insurance, shipping, sales commissions and administration charges.

The business contact was a rogue, and absconded with the fees, which exceeded $1.6 million, and the gems. The Minister allowed a business loss for the gems but not for the professional fees.

Noël JA dismissed the taxpayer's appeal. He stated (at para. 28):

A fraudulent scheme from beginning to end or a sting operation, if that be the case, cannot give rise to a source of income from the victim's point of view and hence cannot be considered as a business under any definition.

Topics and taglines
Tagline
fraudulent scheme is not a business to the victim
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
337731
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Hammill\"></a>Hammill v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2005 DTC 5397, 2005 FCA 252",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}