Golden et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1986] 1 CTC 274

• Judge: Dickson, C.J., Beetz, Estey, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 28, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: [1986] 1 CTC 274;1986 CanLII 50 (SCC);[1986] 3 WWR 1;(1986), 65 N.R. 135 (SCC);40 DTC 6138;[1986] 1 SCR 209;39 RPR 297;25 DLR (4th) 490

Golden v. MNR (1986), 65 N.R. 135 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

.........................

Golden, Golden, McGuckin and Leemar Holdings Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue

(17708)

Indexed As: Golden et al. v. Minister of National Revenue

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J., Beetz, Estey, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest, JJ.

February 28, 1986.

Summary:

A group of taxpayers sold land containing apartment buildings for $5,850,000. The taxpayers allocated $5,100,000 of the purchase price to land, the remaining $750,000 to "equipment, buildings, roads, sidewalks, etc.". Pursuant to s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, the Minister of National Revenue reassessed the allocation, greatly increasing the amount of recaptured capital cost allowance to be added to the taxpayers' incomes. The taxpayers appealed the assessment.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a judgment reported [1980] C.T.C. 488; 80 D.T.C. 6378, dismissed the appeal. The court applied s. 68 of the Act. The taxpayers appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported [1983] 2 F.C. 599; [1983] C.T.C. 112; 47 N.R. 117; 83 D.T.C. 5138, allowed the appeal. The court held that s. 68 did not apply. The Minister of National Revenue appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. Estey, J. (Dickson, C.J., Beetz and La Forest, JJ., concurring), held that s. 68 applied to allow the reassessment, but that the original allocation by the taxpayers was reasonable. Wilson, J. (Chouinard and Lamer, JJ., concurring), dismissed the appeal on the ground that s. 68 did not apply.

Income Tax - Topic 1181

- Income from business or property - Deductions - Capital cost allowance - Disposition of property - Allocation of proceeds - A taxpayer sold land and apartment buildings, allocating the majority of the purchase price to the land, which minimized the amount of recaptured capital cost allowance to be included in the taxpayer's income - Pursuant to s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, the Minister of National Revenue reallocated the purchase price, in creasing the allocation to the buildings - Section 68 applied where the consideration was in part for "any property" and in part for "something else" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 68 applied, because "something else" was to be given the widest meaning reasonably possible, which included property and nonproperty items - See paragraphs 2 - 10.

Income Tax - Topic 3906

Interpretation - In favour of taxpayer - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "in the construction of taxation statutes the law is not confined to a literal and virtually meaningless interpretation of the Act where the words will support on a broader construction a conclusion which is workable and in harmony with the evident purposes of the Act in question. Strict construction in the historic sense no longer finds a place in the canons of interpretation applicable to taxation statutes in an era such as the present, where taxation serves many purposes in addition to the old and traditional object of raising the cost of government from a somewhat unenthusiastic public" - See paragraph 8.

Statutes - Topic 1803

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - Interpretation of both versions - The Supreme Court of Canada relied on both the English and French versions in interpreting s. 68 of the Income Tax Act - See paragraph 5.

Words and Phrases

- SOMETHING ELSE - The Supreme Court of Canada defined the words "something else", as found in s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, to include both property and non-property items - See paragraphs 2 - 10.

Cases Noticed:

Malloney's Studio Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 326; 26 N.R. 165, refd to. [para. 3].

Stubart Investments Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 536; 53 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 8].

Attorney General of Canada v. Matador Inc., [1980] 2 F.C. 703; 39 N.R. 143 (Fed. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Rapistan Canada Ltd. v. M.N.R. (1974), 4 N.R. 409; 74 D.T.C. 6427 (Fed. C.A.), aff'd (1976), 9 N.R. 42; 76 D.T.C. 6177 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Canadian Propane Gas & Oil Ltd. v. M.N.R. (1972), 73 D.T.C. 5019 (F.C. T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Minister of National Revenue v. Leon et al., [1977] 1 F.C. 249; 13 N.R. 420, refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, sect. 13(1), sect. 20(1)(a), sect. 38(a) [para. 30]; sect. 13(21.1) [para. 10]; sect. 68 [paras. 2, 30]; sect. 248(1)(a) [para. 7].

Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, sect. 20(6)(g) [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (12th Ed. 1969), pp. 36-39 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Alban Garon, Q.C., and Beverly J. Hobby, for the appellant;

Greg Bowden and Jacklyn Dean, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on May 2, 1985, before Dickson, C.J., Beetz, Estey, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On February 28, 1986, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Estey, J. (Dickson, C.J., Beetz and La Forest, JJ., concurring) - paragraphs 1 - 12;

Wilson, J. (Chouinard and Lamer, JJ., concurring) - paragraphs 13 - 32.