Canada v. Craig

Listen to Podcast
Case Brief
Facts

John Craig, a lawyer, also engaged in horse-racing activities (buying, selling, training and maintaining horses). He deducted losses from his horse-racing business from his other income in 2000 and 2001. The Minister reassessed, limiting the deductions based on *Moldowan v. The Queen*, arguing that the combination of his law practice and horse-racing was not his chief source of income. The trial judge allowed Craig's appeal following *Gunn v. Canada*, and the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Minister's appeal, holding that it was required to follow its prior decision in *Gunn*.

Issues

1. Whether the Federal Court of Appeal was correct in following its own precedent in *Gunn v. Canada*, which adopted a more generous interpretation of what constitutes a 'combination of farming and some other source of income' under s. 31(1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the Moldowan approach to interpreting the 'combination' aspect of s. 31(1) is correct. 3. Whether Craig's farming (horse-racing) activities, combined with his law practice, constituted his 'chief source of income' for the purposes of s. 31(1) of the Income Tax Act, allowing him to fully deduct farming losses from his total income.

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the lower courts should have limited themselves to writing reasons as to why *Moldowan* was problematic rather than purporting to overrule it, as *Moldowan* was a binding precedent. The Court also stated that while it is not a step to be lightly undertaken, the *Moldowan* approach to the 'combination' question in s. 31(1) is incorrect and requires revisiting. The Court emphasized that s. 31(1) provides two distinct exceptions, and a judge-made rule that reads one out of the provision cannot stand. The Court outlined factors to consider when determining if farming combined with another source is a 'chief source of income', including capital invested, income from each source, time spent, and taxpayer's lifestyle, farming history, and future intentions. Both endeavors must be significant, but not necessarily connected, and farming need not be the predominant source. The determination is factual and requires a flexible approach.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the Crown conceded that the horse-racing operation was a business. They found no basis to disturb the lower court's finding that the combination of Craig's farming (horse-racing) and law practice constituted his chief source of income. Therefore, the loss deduction limitation in s. 31(1) of the Income Tax Act did not apply, and Craig was entitled to deduct his farming losses from his total income.

Transcript
Welcome back to Casepod! Today, we're diving into *Craig v. The Queen*, a fascinating tax case about horse racing, lawyering, and what it really means to have a "chief source of income." Now, the facts are relatively straightforward. John Craig was a lawyer, but he also had a pretty serious horse-racing operation – buying, selling, training, the whole nine yards. In 2000 and 2001, he tried to deduct losses from his horse-racing business from his other income. The taxman, or in this case, the Minister, said "no way," citing a key case called *Moldowan*. The Minister argued that Craig's *main* gig was law, not horses. The lower courts sided with Craig, relying on another case, *Gunn v. Canada*. The Federal Court of Appeal even said it *had* to follow *Gunn*. This brings us to the core legal issues. First, was the Federal Court of Appeal right to just blindly follow *Gunn*? Second, is the *Moldowan* approach to interpreting what a "combination" of income sources even means... correct? And third, did Craig's horse-racing, combined with his law practice, actually constitute his "chief source of income" under the Income Tax Act? It's a mouthful, I know. The Supreme Court tackled these head-on. They said the lower courts went too far in basically overruling *Moldowan*. *Moldowan* was a binding precedent. But the Court also dropped a bombshell. They said the *Moldowan* approach to the "combination" question was... wrong. They said the Income Tax Act actually provides *two* distinct exceptions, and that *Moldowan* effectively erased one of them. So, how *do* we figure out if farming – or in this case, horse-racing – combined with another source is someone's "chief source of income"? The Court laid out a bunch of factors: capital invested, income from each source, time spent, even the taxpayer's lifestyle, history, and future plans. The Court said both endeavors must be significant, but they don't necessarily have to be connected. And here's the kicker: farming doesn't have to be the *predominant* source of income. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. They upheld the lower court's decision in favor of Craig. The Crown conceded that the horse-racing operation was a business. And the Court saw no reason to overturn the finding that the combination of horse-racing and law was Craig's chief source of income. So, he got to deduct his losses. What’s the big takeaway? *Craig* clarifies how we should interpret the "chief source of income" rule when someone has multiple income streams. It's a reminder that tax law is rarely black and white, and that context and individual circumstances matter. And it's a testament to the fact that even seemingly settled legal principles can be revisited and revised by the Supreme Court.