BETWEEN:
and
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on January 9, 2006.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 17, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: NADON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20060117
Docket: A-15-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 17
CORAM : LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ PERRAULT
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] The appellant is appealing a decision by Tardif J. of the Tax Court of Canada dated December 17, 2004, dismissing the appeal he had filed against assessments made by the Minister of Revenue for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years.
[2] Specifically, in the computation of the appellant's income for the three years in dispute, the Minister added the amounts of $5,795, $8,546 and $9,952, respectively, in taxable benefits
for the use of a motor vehicle. In the computation of the appellant's income for the 1996 taxation year, the Minister had denied the $21,368 claimed for carrying charges.
[3] Tardif J. was of the opinion that the assessments made by the Minister had complied with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act (the Act) and he dismissed the appellant's appeal.
[4] With respect to the appellant's use of a motor vehicle, the judge determined that he had received benefits for automobile standby charges, operating costs and for the applicable sales tax, pursuant to paragraphs 6(1)(e), 6(1)(e.1) and 6(1)(k) of the Act. He made this determination after considering the relevant facts, i.e. that the company Stabo Inc., in which the appellant was a shareholder and administrator, had purchased an automobile in March 1992 and another in March 1996 and had made these automobiles available exclusively to the appellant during the 1995 (in the case of the automobile purchased in March 1992) and 1996 and 1997 (in the case of the automobile purchased in March 1996) taxation years and that the appellant had not filed any evidence regarding the use he made of these automobiles in order to distinguish his personal use from the use for business purposes.
[5] With respect to the Minister's refusal to allow the appellant to deduct from his revenue for the 1996 taxation year the amount of $21,368 that he had loaned to his son to help him cope with his financial difficulties, Tardif J., relying on paragraphs 18(1)(a) and 20(1)(p) of the Act, determined that the appellant had not been entitled to such a deduction since the loan had evidently not been made by the appellant in the ordinary course of business or in the course of the commercial activities of a money-lending business.
[6] The appellant has failed to persuade me that in so determining, Tardif J. made an error justifying our intervention. Moreover, I am satisfied that the Judge was correct in dismissing the appellant's appeal from the assessments. Considering the evidence before him, I do not understand how he could have found otherwise.
[7] For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
"I concur.
Gilles Létourneau J.A."
"I concur.
J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A."
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-15-05
APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARDIF OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED DECEMBER 17, 2004, DOCKET NO. 2004-1535(IT)I.
STYLE OF CAUSE: ANDRÉ PERRAULT
v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: January 9, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: NADON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
DATE DES MOTIFS: January 17, 2006
APPEARANCES:
|
Boucherville, Quebec |
FOR THE APPELLANT (himself)
|
| FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT |