In finding that the taxpayer was entitled to recognize a business investment loss on an interest-bearing loan made by him to a company ("DSM") operated by his son and of which the taxpayer was a 25% owner, Rothstein JA stated (at para. 10):
The finding of the Tax Court Judge that the "predominant purpose" of the loan was to help his son necessarily implies that there was another subordinate purpose. The evidence was that the loan was to bear interest. In addition, the appellant was a shareholder of DSM entitling him to dividends. The Court is not to second-guess the business acumen of taxpayers (see Stewart v. Canada, 2002 SCC 46 at para. 55). The subordinate purpose is sufficient.