|
Docket: 2003-4280(IT)I |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON, |
|
Appellant, |
|
and |
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard on March 25, 2004 at Nanaimo, British Columbia
|
By: The Honourable Justice D.W. Beaubier |
|
|
|
|
|
Appearances: |
|
|
|
|
|
For the Appellant: |
The Appellant himself |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Stacey Michael Repas |
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeals from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 2000 and 2001 taxation years are dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Regina, Saskatchewan this 7th day of April, 2004.
|
"D.W. Beaubier" |
Beaubier, J.
|
Citation: 2004TCC252 |
|
Date: 20040407 |
|
Docket: 2003-4280(IT)I |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON, |
|
Appellant, |
|
and |
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Beaubier, J.
[1] This appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at Nanaimo, B.C., on March 26, 2004. The Appellant was the only witness.
[2] Paragraphs 4 to 9 inclusive of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal outline the matters in dispute. They read:
4. The Minister reassessed the Appellant's 2000 and 2001 taxation years on February 27, 2003 to disallow the Expenses and the GST Rebate and accordingly issued notices on that date.
5. The Appellant objected to the reassessments by serving on the Minister a Notice of Objection dated April 4, 2003.
6. The Minister confirmed the reassessments to the Appellant's 2000 and 2001 taxation years on September 12, 2003 and accordingly issued a notification on that date.
7. In so reassessing and confirming the Appellant's 2000 and 2001 taxation years, the Minister relied on the same following assumptions of fact:
a) during 2000, the Appellant was employed by Highway Constructors Ltd. (the "Employer");
b) during 2000, the Appellant earned employment income of $59,858 from the Employer;
c) during 2001, the Appellant earned employment income from the following employers:
Employer Income
Highway Constructors - Jan. to July 2001 $32,232
Tracker Contracting Ltd. $1,151
Willms Enterprises Ltd. $796
Formula Transport Ltd. $5,808
d) during the 2000 and 2001 taxation years, the Appellant did not maintain a mileage log;
e) the Appellant did not maintain any records respecting the Expenses;
f) the Appellant did not file Forms T2200 "Declaration of Conditions of Employment" with the filing of his 2000 and 2001 income tax returns, but filed them at a later date;
g) the Expenses included amounts incurred by the Appellant in connection with travel from his home and his job sites and back;
h) the Appellant claimed the Expenses based on various rates;
i) the Appellant did not incur the Expenses in the course of his employment.
B. ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
8. The issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to deduct the Expenses.
C. STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELIED ON
9. He relies on subsections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(10) and paragraph 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(h.1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th suppl.), as amended (the "Act").
[3] Assumptions 7(e), (f) and (i) were the only ones refuted. Respecting them, the Court finds:
(e) The Appellant is now a 63 year old truck and construction equipment operator. He kept his expense records but after the years 2000 and 2001 when he worked on the Island Highway from his home in Campbell River, B.C. and then in Alberta, he expected that he would have to move to find work. In the course of a probable move, he threw out the records in question.
(f) The Appellant obtained suitable form T2200's for the years in question from Highway Contractors Ltd. after these assessments occurred and he learned that he needed them. They were filed as exhibits.
(i) The Appellant did incur expenses in the course of his employment when he drove in his pick-up truck from job site to job site as directed by his employer when various portions of jobs had to be stopped due to environmental or engineering obstacles being encountered. These drives were over rough construction or mountain trails which often required a four wheel off-road pick-up. These expenses amounted to about two-thirds of his total due to the harsh terrain and the mechanical and tire problems it created.
[4] The result is that the Appellant proved the fact that he incurred expenses in the course of employment and the form T2200's enable him to claim them. The problem is that he no longer has his receipts and his accountant claimed them on varying per kilometre basis that included personal as well as employment mileage. These per kilometre rates corresponded with government mileage rates in British Columbia at those times and varied slightly with each area.
[5] There are a number of problems with the Appellant's case that began when his accountant prepared his income tax returns in question. They include:
1. The fact that he then had no T2200 forms which should have been included in his tax returns at that time.
2. The known fact that an employee must claim expenses which can be verified, and not a mileage rate.
3. The known fact that travel to and from home to a place of employment and personal travel expenses cannot be claimed by a business person or an employee.
All of these facts were violated.
[6] The Appellant could only estimate his personal travel in his truck when he testified and he neither estimated his actual expenses nor could he verify them.
[7] The result is that the Court believes that the Appellant incurred some allowable travel expenses, but the Appellant was not able to establish what they were. Moreover, these problems existed and could have been corrected when he filed his income tax returns.
[8] Therefore the appeals are dismissed.
Signed at Regina, Saskatchewan, this 7th day of April, 2004.
|
"D.W. Beaubier" |
Beaubier, J.
|
CITATION: |
2004TCC252 |
|
COURT FILE NO.: |
2003-4280(IT)I |
|
STYLE OF CAUSE: |
Robert Louis Stevenson v. The Queen |
|
PLACE OF HEARING: |
Nanaimo, British Columbia |
|
DATE OF HEARING: |
March 25, 2004 |
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: |
The Honourable Justice D.W. Beaubier |
|
DATE OF JUDGMENT: |
April 7, 2004 |
|
APPEARANCES: |
|
For the Appellant: |
The Appellant himself |
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Stacey Michael Repas |
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD: |
|
For the Appellant: |
|
Name: |
|
|
Firm: |
|
|
For the Respondent: |
Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada |