The recent case of Livingston v. The Queen, 2015 TCC 24, considered whether, for the purposes of the “replacement property” rules found in section 44 of the Income Tax Act (Canada), certain business assets could be considered to replace real estate. In that case, the appellant disposed of farmland and sought to defer the capital gain otherwise realized by asserting that certain tangible assets (e.g., livestock, farm equipment, a milk quota etc.) “replaced” the vended land. The Court ultimately rejected that argument and dismissed the appeal, but provided several helpful comments indicating that in certain circumstances one type of property (e.g., depreciable property) could indeed be considered “replacement property” for another type (e.g., real estate). A full copy of the decision can be found here: link.