Blackmore v. Minister of National Revenue, (2014) 466 N.R. 66 (FCA)

• Judge: Sharlow, Pelletier and Stratas, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: September 22, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 466 N.R. 66 (FCA);2014 FCA 210

Blackmore v. MNR (2014), 466 N.R. 66 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.R. TBEd. OC.022

Winston Blackmore (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(A-334-13; 2014 FCA 210; 2014 CAF 210)

Indexed As: Blackmore v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court of Appeal

Sharlow, Pelletier and Stratas, JJ.A.

September 24, 2014.

Summary:

At issue was whether the community known as Bountiful, led by Winston Blackmore, was a "congregation" within the meaning of s. 143(4) of the Income Tax Act (the provisions respecting communal organizations).

The Tax Court of Canada, in a decision with neutral citation 2013 TCC 264, concluded that s. 143 did not apply to the Bountiful community because it is not a "congregation" within the meaning of s. 143(4). Blackmore appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Income Tax - Topic 7397

Special rules - Communal organizations - What constitute - At issue was whether the community known as Bountiful, led by Winston Blackmore, was a "congregation" within the meaning of s. 143(4) of the Income Tax Act (the provisions respecting communal organizations) - The Tax Court held that Bountiful was not a "congregation" because the community did not meet the requisite criteria in s. 143(4)) - Blackmore appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - If the community failed to meet even one of the four criteria in s. 143, then s. 143 did not apply - Here, the community did not meet the requirement in 143(4)(c) that the community not permit it members to own any property in their own right - The Tax Court judge made no error in her interpretation of s. 143.

Cases Noticed:

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 6].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 12].

Wipf v. Minister of National Revenue, [1973] 1 F.C. 1382, affd. [1975] F.C. 162; 7 N.R. 72 (F.C.A.), affd. (1976), 7 N.R. 549 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), sect. 143(4) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Natasha Reid and David R. Davies, for the appellant;

Lynn Burch and David Everett, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Thorsteinssons LLP, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Department of Justice, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on September 22, 2014, before Sharlow, Pelletier and Stratas, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following judgment was delivered for the court, by Sharlow, J.A., on September 24, 2014.