[1] This is an application for judicial review of a judgment of the Tax Court rendered orally on June 29, 2001. The written reasons were issued on November 23, 2001 and are now reported as Myles v. Canada, [2001] T.C.J. No. 776.

[2] Having carefully reviewed all of the material filed by both parties, including Interpretation Bulletin IT-373R dated March 14, 1985 entitled "Farm woodlots and tree farms", and all of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5^th supp), c. 1 and the Income Tax Regulations, I have been unable to find any provision that would permit Mr. Myles to claim "depletion" based on his understanding of that term. Mr. Myles' reliance on paragraph 2(c) of IT-373R is misplaced. It reads as follows:

An allowance for depletion of the woodlot may be claimed in accordance with the rules in Schedule VI of the Regulations.

[3] The reference to "depletion" is simply an error (the error does not occur in the May, 2001 version of that Information Bulletin, IT-373R2). Read in context, paragraph 2(c) of IT-373R is intended to explain "capital cost allowance" as permitted by Schedule VI of the Income Tax Regulations. As the Tax Court Judge said at paragraph 6 of his reasons, the "depletion" referred to in IT-373R has in fact been allowed by the Minister, albeit in the form of capital cost allowance. Further, there is no statutory basis for Mr. Myles' assertion that, with respect to the matter of "depletion", there is any difference in tax treatment between a person who operates only a woodlot and a person who operates a farm and woodlot together.

[4] Mr. Myles also appealed the decision of the Tax Court Judge not to award costs to him. That was a decision within the discretion of the Tax Court Judge.

[5] For these reasons, this application for judicial review should be dismissed with costs.

"K. Sharlow"

J.A.

"I agree

Robert Décary J.A."

"I agree

J.D.Denis Pelletier J.A."

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-524-01

STYLE OF CAUSE: DONALD V. MYLES V. HER MAJESTY THE

QUEEN

PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA

DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 9, 2002

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : SHARLOW J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY, PELLETIER J.J.A.

DATED: OCTOBER 10, 2002

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Donald V. Myles

(on his own behalf) FOR THE APPELLANT

Ms. Wendy Burnham

Ms. Rosemary Fincham FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Mr. Donald V. Myles

Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT

Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT

Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.

Do not display this message anymore