Myles v. Canada

Myles v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2002-10-10
Neutral citation
2002 FCA 382
File numbers
A-524-01
Decision Content
Date: 20021010
Docket: A-524-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 382
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
DONALD V. MYLES
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, October 9, 2002
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, October 10, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20021010
Docket: A-524-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 382
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
DONALD V. MYLES
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SHARLOW J.A.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a judgment of the Tax Court rendered orally on June 29, 2001. The written reasons were issued on November 23, 2001 and are now reported as Myles v. Canada, [2001] T.C.J. No. 776.
[2] Having carefully reviewed all of the material filed by both parties, including Interpretation Bulletin IT-373R dated March 14, 1985 entitled "Farm woodlots and tree farms", and all of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th supp), c. 1 and the Income Tax Regulations, I have been unable to find any provision that would permit Mr. Myles to claim "depletion" based on his understanding of that term. Mr. Myles' reliance on paragraph 2(c) of IT-373R is misplaced. It reads as follows:
An allowance for depletion of the woodlot may be claimed in accordance with the rules in Schedule VI of the Regulations.
[3] The reference to "depletion" is simply an error (the error does not occur in the May, 2001 version of that Information Bulletin, IT-373R2). Read in context, paragraph 2(c) of IT-373R is intended to explain "capital cost allowance" as permitted by Schedule VI of the Income Tax Regulations. As the Tax Court Judge said at paragraph 6 of his reasons, the "depletion" referred to in IT-373R has in fact been allowed by the Minister, albeit in the form of capital cost allowance. Further, there is no statutory basis for Mr. Myles' assertion that, with respect to the matter of "depletion", there is any difference in tax treatment between a person who operates only a woodlot and a person who operates a farm and woodlot together.
[4] Mr. Myles also appealed the decision of the Tax Court Judge not to award costs to him. That was a decision within the discretion of the Tax Court Judge.
[5] For these reasons, this application for judicial review should be dismissed with costs.
"K. Sharlow"
J.A.
"I agree
Robert Décary J.A."
"I agree
J.D.Denis Pelletier J.A."
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-524-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: DONALD V. MYLES V. HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 9, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : SHARLOW J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY, PELLETIER J.J.A.
DATED: OCTOBER 10, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Donald V. Myles
(on his own behalf) FOR THE APPELLANT
Ms. Wendy Burnham
Ms. Rosemary Fincham FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Donald V. Myles
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario