Is it an “adventure or concern in the nature of trade” for the purpose of selling a house to live in?

Fourth, a taxpayer cannot retroactively re-characterize a purchase, or the purpose of a purchase, to make it an “adventure or concern in the nature of trade”. Schemes entered into with the sole intention of creating a business loss do not qualify as “adventures in the nature of trade”: Whent v. The Queen, 1999 CanLII 9255 (FCA), [2000] 1 C.T.C. 329 (F.C.A.)[Whent]. Also, the fact that a taxpayer might have a secondary hope or expectation of selling at a profit is irrelevant, as it is the primary purpose that governs. This answers the assertion that the clients who purchased houses to live in were engaged in an “adventure or concern in the nature of trade” merely because they had the hope that their homes would increase in value.