Date: 20000210
Docket: A-584-98
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant
- and -
RULAND REALTY LIMITED
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario on Thursday, February 10, 2000
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Thursday, February 10, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
Date: 20000210
Docket: A-584-98
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
- and -
RULAND REALTY LIMITED
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on
Thursday, February 10, 2000)
ROTHSTEIN J.A.:
| _. Despite the able argument of counsel for the appellant, we are in agreement with the learned Tax Court Judge that the deposits and agreements for the purchase of land for development and sale were, in this case, inventory, the cost of which was correctly determined by the respondent and which the respondent was entitled to write down in computing its income tax for the 1990 taxation year. |
| _. As the other arguments of the appellant are dependent on a finding that the deposits and agreements were not inventory, it is not necessary to address them. |
| _. The appeal will be dismissed with costs. |
"Marshall Rothstein"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| DOCKET: A-584-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN |
| - and - |
RULAND REALTY LIMITED
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2000
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. |
Delivered at Toronto, Ontario
Thursday, February 10, 2000
APPEARANCES: Ms. Patricia Lee
Ms. Marilyn Vardy
| For the Appellant |
Mr. David Nathanson
Ms. Natasha Menon
| For the Respondent |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenberg |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
| For the Appellant |
| McDonald & Hayden |
Barristers & Solicitors
One Queen Street East
Suite 1500
Toronto, Ontario
M5C 2Y3
| For the Respondent |
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20000210
Docket: A-584-98
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
| - and - |
| RULAND REALTY LIMITED |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT