McIntosh v. Minister of National Revenue, 58 DTC 1021, [1958] CTC 18, [1958] S.C.R. 119 -- summary under Real Estate

By services, 28 November, 2015

A retired individual who agreed to participate with a relative in the purchase of building lots realized a taxable profit from the disposition of his portion of the lots notwithstanding that the disposition followed a difference of opinion with his associate rather than occurring pursuant to the original plan. The Court stated (at p. 1022):

[A]s stated by Jessel M.R. in Smith v. Anderson, (1880), 15 Ch. D. 247 at 261...

So in the ordinary case of investments, a man who has money to invest, invests his money and he may occasionally sell the investments and buy others, but he is not carrying on a business.

However, it is also true, as well in the case of an individual as of a company, that the profits of an isolated venture may be taxed: Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow et al., [1956] A.C. 14, [1955] 3 All E.R. 48. It is impossible to lay down a test that will meet multifarious circumstances that may arise in all fields of human endeavour. As is pointed out in Noak v. Minister of National Revenue, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 136, 53 DTC 1212, [1954] C.T.C. 6, it is a question of fact in each case....

In the present case I agree with Mr. Justice Hyndman’s findings...that: -

Having acquired the said property there was no intention in his mind to retain it as an investment, but to dispose of the lots, if and when suitable prices could be obtained.

Topics and taglines
Tagline
no intention to retain vacant subdivision as an investment
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
339170
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"McIntosh\"></a>McIntosh v. MNR</em></strong>, 58 DTC 1021, [1958] CTC 18, [1958] S.C.R. 119",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}
Workflow properties
Workflow state