http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/71084/index.do
Pilford (Estate) v. Canada (April 14, 2014 – 2014 FCA 97) was an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court blogged earlier on this site:
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/31198/index.do#_ftn1
The issue was whether the income of the fishing business of the late Mr. Pilford was located on a Reserve and therefore exempt from tax. The Tax Court held that the fishing business was not sufficiently connected with a Reserve and denied the appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal concurred with the findings of the Tax Court and also denied the appeal:
[7] Justice Miller acknowledged that the location of the corporate offices and their books and records was a factor that connected Mr. Pilfold’s income to the reserve, as was the fact that some corporate decisions were made there. But he found that those connections to be insufficient to overcome the factors relating to the substantive aspects of the source of the corporate income – the fishing business – which did not have a substantial connection to the reserve.
[8] Justice Miller found no substantial connection between the operational aspects of the fishing business and any reserve. The fishing boat and fishing equipment were kept off reserve. The extensive preparations required each season occurred off reserve under Mr. Pilfold’s direction as captain of the fishing boat. The fishing took place off reserve under Mr. Pilfold’s direction. All sales were made by Mr. Pilfold to commercial buyers off reserve. The only factual connections between the fishing operation and the reserve were weak or insubstantial: some telephone calls were made from the Musqueam home with respect to equipment repairs, and some trimmings from the roe on kelp harvesting – a relatively small amount – were donated to First Nations.
[9] I am unable to discern any error in Justice Miller’s analysis, or in his conclusion that the income in issue was not property of Mr. Pilfold located on a reserve. Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.