In this decision, Justice Owen gives a masterful analysis of the meaning of “capital gain” and “adventure in the nature of trade”. This case involved a piece of land donated to the City of Ottawa for a tax credit. The Crown did not object to the tax credit but thought that the disposition should be taxed as business income. On that point, Justice Owen, who disagreed, said:
[98] As in Whent, Mr. Staltari had no ascertainable primary intention to profit when he purchased the Land and any secondary intention to profit that he may have had became irrelevant once he chose to donate the Land to the City of Ottawa. His decision to donate the Land cancelled any “nature of trade” that his acquisition and ownership of the Land may have had because of a secondary intention. In short, where only a secondary intention is in issue, the character of the adventure or concern as a capital transaction and not as being “in the nature of trade” is dictated by the absence of any profit motive associated with a bona fide gift.[35]
[99] The courts have recognized that it is possible to make a “‘profitable’ gift”[36] because of the favourable income tax consequences of certain gifts, particularly where the donated property is acquired for a bargain price.[37] However, favourable income tax consequences do not, in and of themselves, vitiate the existence of a gift, nor do they give rise to a profit for the purposes of the ITA. In my view, it is wrong to suggest that a gift of the Land is akin to an unsolicited offer to purchase the Land or that the“profit” from the gift (in the sense of the favourable income tax consequences) imbues the transaction with the quality of trade.
…
[101] It is therefore clear that the nature of the gift as a transfer of property for no consideration is not changed simply because there are favourable income tax consequences to the donor. This is so even though the donor is deemed to have received fair market value proceeds of disposition because of a gift inter vivos.
[102] As for the so-called profit, the Federal Court of Appeal held in Moloney v. Canada, [1992] F.C.J. No. 905 (QL) and Canada v.Loewen, 1994 CanLII 3478 (FCA), [1994] 3 F.C. 83 that an advantage that flows exclusively from the provisions of the ITA is not a profit and that a business cannot consist of a transaction whose sole purpose is to reduce the tax that would otherwise be payable. Stated another way, income tax is calculated and paid after the income-earning process is complete and therefore a reduction of income tax because of a non-refundable income tax credit is not “profit” for the purposes of the ITA: … Accordingly, a profit motive cannot be attributed to Mr. Staltari simply because the gift of the Land yielded favourable income tax consequences.