A lump sum payment received by the taxpayers, following negotiation, with the sole tenant of their building, was an income receipt given that the payment compensated them for the loss of rental income, and there was no direct link between the payment and loss in value of the property. Respecting an argument that the lease was a capital item to the taxpayers, Miller J. noted that the taxpayers themselves did not have a leasehold interest in the property: they were the owners of the property.
Topics and taglines
Tagline
negotiated lump sum from tenant was for lost rental income
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
339396
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<a id=\"Bueti\"></a><strong><em>Bueti v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2006 DTC 3047, 2006 TCC 320, affirmed <em>sub nomine</em> <strong><em>Spezzano v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2007 DTC 5580, 2007 FCA 294",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}
"field_legacy_header": "<a id=\"Bueti\"></a><strong><em>Bueti v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2006 DTC 3047, 2006 TCC 320, affirmed <em>sub nomine</em> <strong><em>Spezzano v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2007 DTC 5580, 2007 FCA 294",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}