Before going on to find that legal fees incurred as a result of a cancellation by the taxpayer of an agreement to purchase a building were capital expenditures, Paris J. rejected a submission that they should not be considered to have been incurred in connection with a source of business. Although Paris J accepted the Crown's submission that the property, if acquired, would have represented a source of income that was separate from the two rental properties already held by the taxpayer, the property to be acquired already represented a source of income at the time the taxpayer agreed to purchase it. A business commenced where some significant activity was undertaken as "an essential preliminary to normal operations" (para. 14) and (at para. 16) "in the case at bar, the Appellant promised, in an enforceable contract, to purchase the building, and that is an essential preliminary to the operation of the property".
Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
337927
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Dubois v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2007 DTC 1534, 2007 TCC 461 (Informal Procedure)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Dubois v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2007 DTC 1534, 2007 TCC 461 (Informal Procedure)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}