https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/365579/index.do
Kniazev v. The Queen (March 8, 2019 – 2019 TCC 58, Smith J.).
Précis: The taxpayer, a real estate agent, applied for the New Housing Rebate on two properties:
266 Sloss Court, Newmarket, Ontario; Closed – September 2014; Sold March 2015
314-95 North Park Road, Thornhill, Ontario; Closed – May 2014; Sold August 2014
The Court rejected his evidence that he intended to use each house as his primary place of residence and concluded that he was simply flipping the properties to earn profit. His appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: The taxpayer’s own evidence basically sealed his fate:
[29] During cross-examinations, the Appellant acknowledged that he purchased the Sheppard Avenue condo in November 2010, the Thornhill condo in January 2011, the Sloss Court residence October 2011 and the Keswick property in May 2012. He admitted that “it was a hot time for buying” which is more indicative of an intention to acquire residential properties for resale or in the pursuit of profit, also known as “flipping” (Sivakumar v. R., 2013 TCC 325, para. 19). I find that this does not meet the requirement of subsection 254(2)(b) that the Appellant intended to acquire the properties “for use as his primary place of residence”.
His appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.