Article content continued

The taxpayer entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for the Yonge Street condo on Feb. 16, 2007 prior to the completion of construction of the building. He took possession of the property on May 11, 2009 and became the owner on Oct. 30, 2009 at the time of closing. One and a half months later, on Dec. 16, 2009, the property was listed for sale, with the taxpayer’s wife, acting as the real estate agent. The property sold six days later on Dec. 22, 2009 and the closing date of that sale was Jan. 12, 2010.

The taxpayer testified that the family moved to the condo in June 2009 and left in early January 2010. During this brief period of time, the taxpayer explained that he was away for most of the time because he had to go overseas for the death of his father. His wife testified that she also had to travel back and forth overseas during this period because her mother became ill. The taxpayer’s wife testified that in late 2009, the family’s two older children had decided that “in order to be supportive … they should move back home. In order to do so, the family would need a larger condo unit” and thus the decision was to put the condo up for sale.

As a result, the family explained that it moved out of the condo in early January 2010 and went to live with some relatives until they moved into another condo, which was purchased in January 2010 which they moved into in February 2010.

The judge did not believe the taxpayer’s testimony on the key point of whether or not the family actually moved to the condo for a variety of reasons. For one, it seemed that the “560 square feet one bedroom condo is pretty crowded for two parents and a university age son.”