CARTWRIGHT,
J.
(all
concur)
:—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
Noël,
J.
allowing
the
respondent’s
appeal
from
the
assessments
of
income
tax
made
for
its
1957
and
1958
taxation
years.
The
question
for
decision
is
whether
profits
of
$703,636
realized
in
1957
and
$63,932
realized
in
1958
on
the
acquisition
and
sale
by
the
respondent
of
shares
in
Trans-Canada
Pipe
Lines
Limited
and
Quebec
Natural
Gas
Corporation
were
income
from
a
business
within
the
meaning
of
Sections
3,
4
and
139(1)
(e)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
as
is
contended
by
the
appellant,
or
were
realization
of
an
enhancement
in
the
value
of
investments
held
by
the
respondent,
as
found
by
the
learned
trial
judge.
It
is
not
questioned
that
the
primary
activities
of
the
respondent
are
those
of
a
bona
fide
investment
company
but
counsel
for
the
appellant
argues
that
the
particular
transactions,
out
of
which
the
profit
sought
to
be
taxed
arose,
were
speculations
constituting
adventures
in
the
nature
of
a
trade.
The
question
is
essentially
one
of
fact
depending
on
the
intention
with
which
the
respondent
acquired
the
shares.
The
learned
trial
judge
has
set
out
the
relevant
facts
in
detail
and
has
made
reference
to
several
passages
in
the
evidence.
I
do
not
find
it
necessary
to
repeat
these.
I
am
satisfied
that
the
learned
trial
judge
gave
full
consideration
to
all
the
circumstances
relied
upon
by
the
appellant
and
having
done
so
he
reached
the
conclusion
that
the
shares
in
question
were
acquired
by
the
respondent
as
investments
to
be
held
as
a
source
of
income
in
the
ordinary
course
of
its
business
as
an
investment
company
and
that
the
reason
it
decided
to
realize
these
investments
after
a
comparatively
short
period
of
time
was
that,
in
the
opinion
of
its
responsible
officers,
the
shares
had
reached
a
price
which
was
unrealistically
high.
If
this
finding
of
fact
is
accepted,
no
question
of
law
arises.
A
perusal
of
the
record
in
the
light
of
the
full
and
able
arguments
addressed
to
us
satisfies
me
that
this
finding
was
right.
For
the
reasons
given
by
Noël,
J.
and
those
briefly
stated
above,
I
would
dismiss
the
appeal
with
costs.
Email this Content