Farming

Table of Contents

Cases

Bourque v. The Queen, 96 DTC 6412 (FCA)

racing and horse raising one business

The maintenance of horses for racing by the taxpayer, and the racing itself, represented one business of the taxpayer, rather than two separate sources of business income as argued by him.

Levy v. The Queen, 90 DTC 6346 (FCTD)

included breeding

In rejecting an argument that a syndicate of individuals were not engaged in "farming" because their primary operation was the breeding of horses rather than actually raising them, Rouleau, J. stated:

"The Court cannot attempt to distinguish and prorate racing, breeding, etc., and conclude that it does not constitute farming. Each of these activities are involved in 'maintaining race horses' or 'maintaining horses for racing'."

Pollon v. The Queen, 84 DTC 6139, [1984] CTC 131 (FCTD)

mechanized chicken farming

The hatching of eggs by mechanical means constituted "farming". Addy, J. stated: "Where the development of the basic food product still involves the growing process and natural biological changes as opposed to artificially manufactured foods or mere processing, I do not feel that, generally speaking, the activity would be considered by the general public anything other than agricultural in nature".

The enumeration of items is not an exhaustive definition of "farming".

Israel v. The Queen, 79 DTC 5418, [1979] CTC 468 (FCTD)

employee not engaged in farming business

Since the definition excludes employment under a person engaged in the business of farming, an individual cannot be said to be engaged in farming if all the relevant farming activities are carried out by a corporation of which he is employee, officer and shareholder.

McLaws v. The Queen, 76 DTC 6005, [1976] CTC 15 (FCTD)

"The breeding and keeping of horses for racing purposes falls squarely within the meaning of 'maintaining horses for racing' and therefore constitutes farming."

Juster v. The Queen, 74 DTC 6540, [1974] CTC 681 (FCA)

The "maintaining" of horses for racing included an operation where the care and training of the horses was contracted out to independent contractors.

The Queen v. Kuhl, 74 DTC 6024, [1973] CTC 846 (FCTD)

Services fees received by two brothers from a corporation that was controlled by them and engaged in growing potatoes, was income from a farming business rather than employment income. In addition to there being no employment contracts between them and their company, "their work was not supervised nor their hours controlled in any way by the company, but, on the contrary, it was they who controlled and directed the operations of the company.

See Also

Crichton v. The Queen, 2013 DTC 1104 [at 566], 2013 TCC 96

The taxpayer ran an amusement business in which ponies were harnessed on spokes so that they would move about an axis - essentially a merry-go-round with live animals instead of wooden ones. Bocock J found that s. 31 did not apply, rejecting the Minister's contention the taxpayer was "livestock raising or exhibiting" under the s. 248(1) definition of "farming." He stated (at para. 8):

With respect, 100 years ago such an assertion would have engaged every bakery, dairy, construction company or other business, requiring animal power to "drive" its enterprise, in farming. ... [The taxpayer's] method of "pony propulsion" may be anachronistic and archaic, but factually it is simply that. It is not farming.

Desrosiers v. The Queen, 2001 DTC 37, Docket: 98-906-IT-G (TCC)

In concluding that the taxpayer was operating wood lots as a farming business rather than a logging operation, Dussault TCJ found on the evidence that the main focus of the activities was not lumbering or logging but, rather, the planting, nurturing and harvesting of trees pursuant to a forestry management plan. In particular, cutting work was not the main activity.

LeBlanc v. MNR, 93 DTC 1564 (TCC)

Activities carried out in a vineyard consisting of the preparation of the soil, the planting of the vines, the growing of the grapes, and their ultimate harvesting, were "farming".

Partington v. MNR, 91 DTC 347 (TCC)

The taxpayer, who bred dogs to be sold as pets and operated a kennel was found not to be engaged in farming.

Administrative Policy

13 March 2015 T.I. 2015-0564611E5 - Definition of farming

breeding of rodents as food but not as pets

Before concluding that "the raising or breeding of rodents could be considered 'farming' for purposes of the Act if the primary purpose for such activity is to supply a food source, whether that food source is for animal consumption or human consumption ….[but] the raising or breeding of rodents or other animals to be sold for use as pets would not be considered as farming," CRA noted that

in Sniderman v. MNR, 89 DTC 232, the Tax Court stated that livestock "are domestic animals such as cattle and pigs, bred or kept on a farm for use and commercial profit"

and that it now construes "livestock" more narrowly than as stated in IT-427R.

12 June 2014 T.I. 2014-0527651E5 - Whether keeping a zoo is a farming activity

zoo not farming

In finding that zoo keeping is not farming, CRA stated:

The business of operating a zoo is not, in our view, part of the common, ordinary or generally accepted meaning of farming. To qualify as farming under the Act, it must therefore fall within one of the listed activities in that definition, "livestock raising or exhibiting" being the only potentially relevant one. ...

The GST/HST list [in NM Chapter 4.4] of livestock accords well both with judicial interpretations and common definitions of the word. … Therefore, where a taxpayer raises or exhibits wild or exotic animals such as lions, tigers, apes, or elephants, these types of animals would not, in our view, be considered as livestock… .

7 May 2014 Memorandum 2014-0528251I7 - Surface Rentals for Wind Farms

wind farm not a farm

Would income received by a farmer for the rental of land to a wind farm developer for the purpose of constructing and operating a wind farm be properly included in farming income. CRA stated that "generating electricity from a 'wind farm' does not meet the definition of "farming" in subsection 248(1)," and went on to note that "whether or not the income from… the other activities can be included in the taxpayer's farming income generally depends on whether the other activities are considered to be incidental to the taxpayer's farming operations, or are, in fact, a separate business."

10 April 2014 Memorandum 2014-0522091I7 - Whether aquaculture is farming under the Act

aquaculture as farming

After stating that "growing fish or shellfish in water is normally farming where those are stocked, raised and harvested in a controlled environment," CRA went on to note that:

activities after the fish have matured such as gutting, cleaning, freezing, packaging and storing— are normally considered processing activities, not farming.

25 October 2013 T.I. 2013-0491141E5 F - Sens d'« agriculture » - Meaning of « farming »

consulting not included

"[T]he definition of "farming'…does not include the situation where an individual restricts himself to advising and assisting the agricultural activities in all their agricultural management aspects and, for so doing, receives fees" (TaxInterpretations translation).

22 November 2013 T.I. 2013-0510711E5 - Is growing marijuana farming?

A taxpayer's legal growing and drying of marijuana likely constituted "farming," based on the breadth of the definition in s. 248(1). CRA stated:

[F]arming generally does not include the processing of harvested agricultural products unless the processing activities are incidental to the main farming activity of growing the products and are necessary to turn the harvested agricultural products into saleable products. The expression "incidental" implies a subordinate relationship or "having a minor role in relation to". Factors to be considered include the quantum of value added by the processing activity, the capital and labour invested in each activity, and the integration of the various activities into one farming business.

For example, the Tax Court has previously found that processing activities, namely, drying tobacco and winemaking, were an integral part of a farming business.

19 November 2013 T.I. 2013-0510351E5 - Steel Tanks and Oak Barrels of a Winery Business

wine fermentation not farming

The taxpayer in 2013-0503311E5 carried on a wine-making business that involved both farming activities (i.e., growing grapes) and non-farming activities (i.e., producing wine for sale). Its fermentation tanks and barrels were considered to likely qualify for class 29 purposes as property used primarily in the manufacturing or processing of goods for sale. In clarifying that the exclusion in Reg. 1104(9)(a) of "farming" from "manufacturing or processing" did not apply, CRA stated:

[A] farmer or a farming corporation may carry on activities that, if carried on by another person, would be considered to be processing of farm products rather than farming. Some examples are: aging of cheese, plucking of chickens, cleaning, polishing and treating of beans, or cleaning sorting, grading and spraying of eggs. …[F]arming does not include the manufacturing or processing of agricultural products unless such activities are incidental to the farming activity. …[G]enerally where a farmer or farming corporation separates the activities of farming and the processing of farm products, the CRA will essentially consider the processing activity to be a distinct business from that of farming provided that there is a clear delineation of the income from each business activity, and that the income from the processing business is properly calculated and is not eligible for any of the special sections in the Act dealing with income from a farming business (such as the cash method of computing income in section 28…).

19 February 2002 T.I. 2002-010649 -

preparatory tilling/worms

A limited partnership that was created for the purpose primarily of working land so that it would eventually be certified as an organic farm by a certifying body would not be considered to be engaged in farming given that tillage involves plowing, sowing and raising crops. However, "raising worms may qualify as farming provided that the worms are kept by a taxpayer and are maintained and bred under controlled conditions for profit and provided further that the activities in relation thereto are substantial and extensive."

31 May 1994 T.I. 5-940616

grain drying

"... The activity carried out after the crops have been harvested by farmers (not the taxpayer's own crops) and taken to the grain drying facility of the taxpayer would not qualify as a farming activity since it does not meet the above-mentioned requirements. It follows that the custom grain drying business would not, in such a situation, be considered a farming business."

2 December 1992 T.I. [raising horses]

raising horses

The activity of raising, training and exercising a horse in order that it may compete as a show jumper can be considered as "farming".

22 June 1992 T.I. 921022 [ostrich farm]

ostrich farm

The raising of ostriches for breeding purposes or for the production of eggs or food products likely constitutes farming.

22 January 1992 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 15, p. 23, ¶1709)

Hydroponics can meet the definition of farming.

11 June 1991 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 4, p. 11, ¶1296)

Activities relating to the raising of fish may be considered "farming" when fish are stocked, raised and harvested in a controlled environment such as a pond owned by the farmer. Whether processing activities are part of the farming business or a separate business is a question of fact.

Tax Topics