I&#x27;m going skiing this weekend. I own my car, skis and the rest of the equipment I&#x27;ll need to get there and enjoy a couple days on the slopes, but if I were to rent those items, there would be taxes paid, both in sales tax and on the profits made by the rental companies. So, if I were in the NL should their government require me to pay taxes on the items I own due to it depriving the government of the taxes I&#x27;d be generating by renting everything? Would that tax vary depending on how many times I used my equipment? That seems nonsensical and creates an ad absurdum situation...would someone be taxed for cooking their own meals since restaurants pay taxes?<p>&gt; Economically there is no good reason to distinguish between these two cases<p>The good reason is property rights. The ability for people to own things and use them as they see fit is almost a requirement for a free society. Governments have established that by creating rules and an environment where commerce can take place, they can collect taxes on that commerce. But I agree with the post you&#x27;re replying to...creating fictional commerce and then taxing it doesn&#x27;t seem right. If you&#x27;re looking for a difference between the two cases you present, it&#x27;s that the government is willing to act as an arbiter in any dispute that would result between landlord and tenant. When the landlord and tenant are the same person, there&#x27;s no need for the government to be involved.<p>Note that this shouldn&#x27;t preclude governments from collecting property taxes, just from differentiating between landlords and people who occupy their own homes.