Geddes Contracting Co. v. Canada

Geddes Contracting Co. v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2006-02-02
Neutral citation
2006 FCA 48
File numbers
A-44-05
Decision Content
Date: 20060202
Docket: A-44-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 48
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
GEDDES CONTRACTING CO. LTD.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 2, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 2, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
Date: 20060202
Docket: A-44-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 48
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
GEDDES CONTRACTING CO. LTD.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 2, 2006)
DESJARDINS J.A.
[1] This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada (Bowie J.) (Geddes Contracting Co. Ltd. v. Her Majesty the Queen), [2005] 1 C.T.C. 2718, dismissing the appeal by the appellant of reassessments under the Income Tax Act (the Act) for a number of taxation years.
[2] The facts are not in dispute. A detailed description is found in the reported reasons for judgment of the Tax Court Judge.
[3] The issue was whether, for the purpose of section 96 of the Income Tax Act, Grand Bell, of which the appellant has an interest, was a partnership, i.e. whether it (1) carried on business, (2) in common, (3) with a view to profit.
[4] We have not been persuaded by the appellant that the Tax Court Judge erred in finding that the Grand Bell partners did not carry on business with a view to profit.
[5] We do not draw, from the transcript, any admission from the respondent that the appellant was carrying on business. The representative of the respondent was answering sometimes lengthy questions with short answers, such as "yes", "ok" or "correct". These answers do not amount, nor could they amount to an admission on matters which involved both questions of fact and law, nor could they bind the Tax Court Judge on questions of law.
[6] We find that the Tax Court Judge properly interpreted and applied the law and we see no reason which would warrant our intervention.
[7] This appeal will be dismissed with costs.
(Sgd.) "Alice Desjardins"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-44-05
(APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED JANUARY 6TH 2005 BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE E.A.BOWIE)
STYLE OF CAUSE: Geddes Contracting Co. Ltd. v
Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver BC
DATE OF HEARING: February 2nd 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Desjardins J.A.
Décary J.A.
Sexton J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Desjardins J.A.
APPEARANCES:
John W. Bilawich/Robert D. Holmes
FOR THE APPELLANT
Robert H. Carvalho
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Holmes & King
Vancouver BC
FOR THE APPELLANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT