Court of Appeal

Decision Information

Decision Content

 

 

CASE NO. 146800                                                                                      VOL. NO.                                                                                                                       PAGE

Cite as: Robinson Plymouth Chrysler v. Nova Scotia (Finance), 1998 NSCA 175

 

ROBINSON PLYMOUTH                                                                           - and -                                                                  THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

CHRYSLER LIMITED

                                                                                                                                               

C.A. No. 146800                                                                                       Halifax, N.S.                                                                                            BATEMAN, J.A.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

 

APPEAL HEARD:                                                                                         October 9, 1998

 

 

JUDGMENT DELIVERED:                                                                   October 30, 1998

 

 

SUBJECT:                                   Appeal from Utility and Review Board decision on sales tax pursuant to Revenue Act, S.N.S. 1995‑96 c.17, s.21 formerly the Health Services Tax Act, R.S.N.S. c. 198 s. 10

 

SUMMARY:                            The Utility and Review Board upheld the Tax Commission's reassessment of tax payable on the sale of certain new motor vehicles by an Amherst automobile dealership. The Commission disallowed the deduction of the value of the vehicles trade-in on the new vehicles in calculating the tax owing.  The dealership appealed.

 

 

ISSUES:                                        Should the trade-in allowance have been allowed for tax purposes?

 

RESULT:                                      The Utility and Review Board erred at law in that it misinterpreted the meaning of "accepted in trade" under the statute and, additionally, erred in failing to furnish "reasons" as required by s.27 of the Utility and Review Board Act.  Appeal allowed.  New hearing ordered before a differently constituted Board.

 

 

 

This information sheet does not form part of the court's decision.  Quotes must be from the decision, not this cover sheet.  The full court decision consists of 11 pages.

 

 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.