Citation: 2008TCC232
Date: 20080429
Docket: 2007-3824(IT)I
BETWEEN:
PETER RAGSDALE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Webb J.
[1] The Appellant was
employed in 2000 and 2001 and in the course of his employment he used four
different vehicles. The only issue in this case is the portion of the expenses
that were incurred by the Appellant that he is entitled to claim as a deduction
under paragraph 8(1)(h .1) of the Income Tax Act ("Act")
and the amount of interest and the portion of the capital cost allowance that
the Appellant may claim pursuant to paragraph 8(1)(j) of the Act in
computing his income for 2000 and 2001.
[2] There is no dispute in this case that the conditions as set out in
paragraph 8(1)(h.1) of the Act are satisfied. This paragraph provides
as follows:
8(1) In computing a taxpayer's income for a
taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the
following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the
following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto:
(h.1) where the taxpayer, in
the year,
(i) was ordinarily
required to carry on the duties of the office or employment away from the
employer’s place of business or in different places, and
(ii) was required under
the contract of employment to pay motor vehicle expenses incurred in the
performance of the duties of the office or employment,
amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year in respect
of motor vehicle expenses incurred for travelling in the course of the office
or employment, except where the taxpayer
(iii) received an allowance
for motor vehicle expenses that was, because of paragraph 6(1)(b), not
included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year,
[3] While the Appellant did receive an allowance with respect to his use of
the motor vehicles, the amount of the allowance was included in the Appellant's
income.
[4] The Respondent did not dispute the amount of expenses that were
incurred by the Appellant nor the undepreciated capital cost of the vehicles.
Only the portion of these amounts that could be claimed was disputed.
[5] The Appellant kept detailed records of the number of kilometres that
each vehicle was driven for personal use and the number of kilometres that each
vehicle was driven in the performance of his employment duties. The Respondent
did not dispute the number of kilometres that each vehicle was driven for
personal use and in the performance of his employment duties.
[6] The Appellant used four different vehicles in the performance of his employment
duties in 2000 and 2001. These vehicles were the following:
(a)
a 1994 Ford Explorer
("Explorer");
(b)
a 1987 Porsche 911
("Porsche");
(c)
a 1993 Master MX3
("Mazda"); and
(d)
a 2000 Ford Expedition
("Expedition").
[7] The Expedition was acquired late in the year 2000.
[8] The following tables summarize the number of kilometres that each
vehicle was driven by the Appellant in 2000 and 2001 in the performance of his
duties of employment; the total number of kilometres that each vehicle was
driven in each of these years; the percentage of eligible use as determined by
the Appellant; and the percentage of eligible use as determined by the
Respondent:
2000
|
Vehicle
|
Km Driven Re
Employment
|
Total Kms
Driven
|
% Employment
Use - Appellant
|
% Employment
Use - Respondent
|
|
Explorer
|
15,437
|
21,628
|
71.4%
|
43%
|
|
Porsche
|
2,108
|
2,122
|
99.3%
|
6%
|
|
Mazda
|
9,870
|
11,522
|
85.7%
|
28%
|
|
Expedition
|
355
|
363
|
97.8%
|
1%
|
|
|
|
35,635
|
|
|
2001
|
Vehicle
|
Km Driven Re
Employment
|
Total Kms
Driven
|
% Employment
Use - Appellant
|
% Employment
Use - Respondent
|
|
Explorer
|
5,709
|
20,477
|
27.9%
|
18%
|
|
Porsche
|
539
|
539
|
100.0%
|
2%
|
|
Mazda
|
6,149
|
7,511
|
81.9%
|
20%
|
|
Expedition
|
2,981
|
2,997
|
99.5%
|
10%
|
|
|
|
31,524
|
|
|
[9] The expenses incurred by the Appellant and the capital cost allowance
amount for each vehicle before taking into account the percentage use in the
performance of the duties of employment were:
Explorer
|
|
2000
|
2001
|
|
Maintenance and Repairs
|
$502
|
$40
|
|
Insurance
|
$1,600
|
$1,548
|
|
Licence and registration
|
$74
|
$74
|
|
Capital Cost Allowance
|
$2,651
|
$0
|
|
|
$4,827
|
$1,662
|
Porsche
|
|
2000
|
2001
|
|
Maintenance
and Repairs
|
$52
|
$0
|
|
Insurance
|
$1,172
|
$547
|
|
Licence
and registration
|
$75
|
$74
|
|
Capital
Cost Allowance
|
$3,810
|
$2,667
|
|
Other –
CAA
|
$88
|
$89
|
|
|
$5,197
|
$3,377
|
Mazda
|
|
2000
|
2001
|
|
Maintenance and Repairs
|
$349
|
$128
|
|
Insurance
|
$1,052
|
$1,080
|
|
Licence and registration
|
$75
|
$74
|
|
Capital Cost Allowance
|
$3,907
|
$2,669
|
|
|
$5,383
|
$3,951
|
Expedition
|
|
2000
|
2001
|
|
Maintenance and Repairs
|
$55
|
$125
|
|
Insurance
|
$100
|
$352
|
|
Licence and registration
|
$16
|
$74
|
|
Capital Cost Allowance
|
$6,617
|
$11,121
|
|
Interest
|
$203
|
$2,645
|
|
Other
|
$375
|
$0
|
|
|
$7,366
|
$14,317
|
The Respondent did not dispute any of these amounts
and all of these amounts are set out as part of the assumptions in the Reply.
These amounts are the same as the amounts listed by the Appellant on the T777
forms completed by the Appellant before the Employment Use Portion was applied.
[10] The following tables summarize the expenses incurred and the capital
cost allowance amount for each vehicle; the percentage of eligible use as
determined by the Appellant; the amount claimed by the Appellant; the
percentage of eligible use as determined by the Respondent and the amount
allowed by the Respondent.
2000
|
Vehicle
|
Expenses + CCA
|
% Employment Use – Appellant
|
Amount Claimed by the Appellant
|
% Employment Use - Respondent
|
Amount Allowed by the Respondent
|
|
Explorer
|
$4,827
|
71.4%
|
$3,446
|
43%
|
$2,075
|
|
Porsche
|
$5,197
|
99.3%
|
$5,161
|
6%
|
$312
|
|
Mazda
|
$5,383
|
85.7%
|
$4,613
|
28%
|
$1,507
|
|
Expedition
|
$7,366
|
97.8%
|
$7,204
|
1%
|
$74
|
|
|
|
|
$20,424
|
|
$3,968
|
2001
|
Vehicle
|
Expenses +
CCA
|
% Employment
Use - Appellant
|
Amount
Claimed by the Appellant
|
% Employment
Use - Respondent
|
Amount
Allowed by the Respondent
|
|
Explorer
|
$1,662
|
27.9%
|
$464
|
18%
|
$299
|
|
Porsche
|
$3,377
|
100.0%
|
$3,377
|
2%
|
$67
|
|
Mazda
|
$3,951
|
81.9%
|
$3,236
|
20%
|
$790
|
|
Expedition
|
$14,317
|
99.5%
|
$14,245
|
10%
|
$1,425
|
|
|
|
|
$21,322
|
|
$2,581
|
[11] The significant difference between the amount claimed by the Appellant
and the amount allowed by the Respondent relates to the denominator that was
used in the calculation of the amount claimed or allowed for each particular
vehicle. For each vehicle, the Appellant determined the appropriate amount to
claim based on the number of kilometres that such vehicle was driven in the
course of carrying out his duties of employment, divided by the total number of
kilometres that such vehicle was driven in the year.
[12] The Respondent agreed with the numerator, but for the denominator used
the total number of kilometres that all of the vehicles were driven. As a
result, the amounts allowed by the Respondent were significantly less than the
amounts claimed by the Appellant.
[13] The problem with the approach taken by the Respondent can be
illustrated by a simple example. Assume that an individual who owns two
vehicles is entitled to a deduction pursuant to paragraph 8(h.1) of the Act
(although the amount of such deduction will have to be determined) and the
facts related to the number of kilometres driven and the expenses incurred in
relation to the operation of the vehicles are as follows:
|
Vehicle
|
Kms Driven Re Employment
|
Total Kms Driven
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
Vehicle
#1
|
20,000
|
20,000
|
$3,000
|
|
Vehicle
#2
|
0
|
20,000
|
$3,000
|
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
[14] In this example one vehicle is only used for employment purposes and
the other is only used for personal use. Counsel for the Respondent
acknowledged that the taxpayer would be entitled to deduct all of the expenses
incurred in relation to the first vehicle ($3,000 in this example) as it was
only used in the course of performing the duties of employment.
[15] However if the example is changed slightly, by only changing the
percentage use in performing the duties of employment from 100% to 99% for the
first vehicle (or 19,800 km for employment purposes) and from 0% to 1% for the
second vehicle (or 200 km for employment purposes), the following table would
illustrate the new set of facts:
|
Vehicle
|
Km Driven Re Employment
|
Total Kms Driven
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
Vehicle
#1
|
19,800
|
20,000
|
$3,000
|
|
Vehicle
#2
|
200
|
20,000
|
$3,000
|
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
[16] Using the formula as proposed by the Respondent, the amount that the
taxpayer would be entitled to claim would decrease to:
Vehicle #1
19,800 / 40,000 x $3,000 = $1,485
Vehicle #2
200 / 40,000 x $3,000 = $15
[17] Using the methodology proposed by the Respondent and changing the use
of the two vehicles from 100% and 0% for employment purposes to 99% and 1% for
employment purposes results in the amount allowed being reduced by 50%. In my
opinion such a slight change in the facts should not have such a dramatic
affect on the amount that may be claimed.
[18] The expenses that may be claimed under paragraph 8(1)(h.1) of the Act
are one of two types -- fixed or variable costs. The motor vehicle expenses
that would be fixed costs would be those that do not vary based on the number
of kilometres that the vehicles are driven. In this particular case, the items
that would be fixed expenditures would be insurance, licence and registration. These
would not vary depending on the number of kilometres the vehicles are driven.
While the amount charged for insurance may depend on the proposed number of kilometres
that the vehicle will be driven, once the amount has been determined, the
insurance cost is fixed, regardless of the actual number of kilometres that the
vehicle is driven.
[19] The variable costs are those that will vary depending on the number of kilometres
that the vehicle is driven. The only variable costs in this case are
maintenance and repairs. The fuel costs were paid by the Appellant’s employer.
Fuel costs, if incurred by the Appellant, would have been a variable cost.
[20] Dealing first with the variable costs, in my opinion, the appropriate
way to determine the amount of the variable costs for each vehicle that are
incurred in relation to a taxpayer performing his or her duties of employment
when basing the usage on the kilometres driven would be to determine the
portion of these costs based on the number of kilometres that each vehicle was
driven and not based on the number of kilometres that all vehicles are driven.
To use the total of all kilometres driven by all vehicles would result in a
taxpayer not being entitled to deduct all of the variable costs for fuel,
repairs and maintenance that the taxpayer actually incurred in carrying out his
or her employment duties.
[21] In the above example of a taxpayer with two vehicles that are used 99%
and 1% for employment purposes, if the $3,000 of expenses for each vehicle
referred to above only included the cost of fuel, using the methodology adopted
by the Respondent would mean that the taxpayer would not be entitled to deduct
the total amount spent by the taxpayer on fuel in carrying out his employment
duties and, in my opinion, this is not the correct result for the purposes of
paragraph 8(1)(h.1) of the Act which provides that the amounts that may
be deducted are “amounts expended
by the taxpayer in the year in respect of motor vehicle expenses incurred for
travelling in the course of the office or employment”. In the example where one vehicle is used 99% for
employment purposes and the other vehicle is used 1% for employment purposes,
if the total amount spent on fuel for such employment purposes was $3,000
($2,970 for fuel for the first vehicle and $30 for fuel for the second vehicle),
then the taxpayer should be entitled to a deduction for $3,000, assuming the
other requirements of paragraph 8(1)(h.1) of the Act are satisfied. Any
formula or method of determining the amount deductible that produces a lesser
amount is, in my opinion, not correct.
[22] Therefore, for each vehicle the portion of the variable cost that would
be deductible by the Appellant would the amount determined by the following
formula:
A / B x C where
A is the total number of kilometres that the particular vehicle was
driven by the Appellant during the year in the course of carrying out his
duties of employment;
B is the total number of kilometres that the particular vehicle was
driven during the year; and
C is the amount of the variable costs incurred in operating the
particular vehicle.
[23] With respect to the fixed costs, counsel for the Respondent acknowledged
that the appropriate factor to be examined in determining the use of the
vehicle was the number of kilometres that such vehicle was driven. Since the
appropriate factor to determine the use of a vehicle is the number of kilometres
that it is driven, in my opinion, the fixed costs should be amortized over the
number of kilometres that the vehicle is driven. Using this methodology would
yield the same eligible percentage as that for the variable costs as the
portion of the fixed costs that would be deductible would be based on the same
formula that would be used to determine the amount of variable costs that would
be deductible. The benefit of the fixed costs of insurance and registration are
only realized by driving the vehicle. It seems reasonable that these should be
amortized over the number of kilometres driven. As a result the appropriate
amount of the fixed costs or variable costs that can be deducted should be
determined by the formula set out above which is the same formula as adopted by
the Appellant.
[24] Paragraph 8(1)(j) of the Act sets out the right of the Appellant
to claim capital cost allowance and interest. This paragraph provides as
follows:
8(1) In computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from
an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as
are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as
may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto:
…
(j) where a deduction may be made under
paragraph (f), (h) or (h.1) in computing the taxpayer's income from an office
or employment for a taxation year,
(i) any interest paid by the taxpayer in the
year on borrowed money used for the purpose of acquiring, or on an amount
payable for the acquisition of, property that is
(A) a motor vehicle that is used, or
(B) an aircraft that is required for use
in the performance of the duties of the taxpayer's office or
employment, and
(ii) such part, if any, of the capital cost to the taxpayer of
(A) a motor vehicle that is used, or
(B) an aircraft that is required for use
in the performance of the duties of the office or employment as is
allowed by regulation;
[25] The criteria set out in paragraph 8(1)(j) of the Act is simply
that a deduction may be made under paragraph 8(1)(h.1) of the Act and
therefore the portion of the expenses allowed under paragraph 8(1)(h.1) of the Act
will determine the portion of the interest and capital cost allowance that will
be allowed. The portion of the expenses for the purposes of paragraph 8(1)(h.1)
of the Act that relate to the performance of the duties of employment
will be the same portion for the purposes of paragraph 8(1)(j) of the Act.
This is the same methodology as adopted by the Appellant for each vehicle.
[26] The number of kilometres that a particular vehicle is driven during a
year in the course of employment divided by the number of kilometres that such
vehicle is driven during such year will determine the amount of the variable
costs, the amount of the fixed costs, the amount of interest and the amount of
capital cost allowance that may be claimed.
[27] The auditor for the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) testified and she
stated that if the Appellant would have been a sole proprietor carrying on a
business and not an employee, the same methodology would not have been used and
the business use of each vehicle would have been determined based on the number
of kilometres that such vehicle was driven. Therefore if the Appellant would
have been a sole proprietor carrying on business with four vehicles and with
all of the other facts remaining the same related to the number of kilometres
driven for business purposes, the total number of kilometres driven, and the
amounts expended, presumably he would have been allowed to deduct the amounts
that he had claimed. The auditor stated that the basis for the different
treatment by the CRA was that as an employee he could only drive one vehicle at
a time but if he was in business, the vehicle could be driven by other
employees (which assumes that if he was in business he would have other
employees). Of course if he would have been in business, he could only drive
one vehicle at a time for personal use, which is the other side of the usage
coin.
[28] The general limitation for business expenses is in paragraph 18(1)(a)
of the Act and provides that:
18. (1) In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or
property no deduction shall be made in respect of
(a) an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or
incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from
the business or property;
[29] Since the number of kilometres that a vehicle is driven for business
purposes divided by the total number of kilometres that such vehicle is driven
will be used to determine the amount of fixed and variable costs and capital
cost allowance that were made or incurred for the purpose of gaining or
producing income from a business, why would a different formula be used to
determine the amounts expended
by a taxpayer in the year in respect of the motor vehicle expenses incurred for
travelling in the course of an office or employment? If the appropriate way of
determining the amount of business use (and hence the portion of expenses that are deductible)
when dealing with a vehicle that is used by a sole proprietor partially for
business and partially for personal purposes, and this vehicle is not the only
vehicle owned by the sole proprietor that is so used, is to divide the number of kilometres that a vehicle is driven for
business purposes by the total number of kilometres that such vehicle is
driven, then the same methodology should be used to determine the extent to
which a vehicle is used for traveling in the course of employment (and hence the portion of expenses that are
deductible). Generally a vehicle that is used for more than one purpose is only
being used for a business purpose when someone is using it to travel for
business purposes and therefore if the appropriate measure of the business use
is determined by using the kilometres for that vehicle in the denominator, then
this same principle should apply in determining the percentage that a vehicle
is used in travelling for employment purposes.
[30] The Respondent had also raised the issue of reasonableness. In Podlesny v. The
Queen, 2005 TCC 97; 2005 DTC 344; [2005] 1 C.T.C. 2912, Associate Chief
Justice Bowman (as he then was) dealt with a case where an employee had three
vehicles of which two were used in carrying out his duties of employment. The Reply
that was filed in that case did not refer to section 67 of the Act and a
request at the opening of trial to amend the Reply to add a reference to
section 67 of the Act was denied. In that case Associate Chief Justice
Bowman (as he then was) made the following comments on reasonableness:
15 There is also the question of reasonableness which was not
pleaded but which appears to have been an important consideration in the making
of the assessments. It is obvious to me that Mr. Podlesny was rather aggressive
in claiming the cost of two cars in computing his employment income. It is
equally obvious that he liked cars. That, however, is his choice. It is not for
me or the Minister to second-guess his business judgement and say that he
cannot use two cars for business purposes even though he might have been able
to make do with only one, and a cheaper one at that. His work is important and
at times urgent. His decision to have two well maintained automobiles is not so
patently absurd that I would be justified in setting it aside as irrational or
capricious. (See, for example, Gabco Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1968] DTC 5210).
To do so would require me to substitute my business judgement for that of the
taxpayer and that is not something that I am entitled or prepared to do.
Moreover, I would be to some extent usurping the role of Parliament. If
Parliament wants to say that you can only use one car in your business it knows
how to say so, just as it has put a limit on how much CCA you can claim on a
luxury car. I do not think that one can, under the guise of
"reasonableness" substitute the court's judgement for that of the
taxpayer….
…
17 Even
if the question of reasonableness had been pleaded I would not be prepared to
uphold the Minister's action in allowing certain expenses on only one
automobile or allowing CCA on both automobiles but limiting it to what is
essentially the total amount that might be claimed on one. This sort of rough
and ready approach may have a certain superficial attractiveness but it is
simply not in accordance with a measured application of the rule of
reasonableness. It is arbitrary. Once it is accepted that the
"business" use of two automobiles is 97%, the Minister cannot simply
reduce the amount allowed to a figure that he finds more palatable.
[31] Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Podlesny case can
be distinguished because the Minister in that case had accepted that the
“business” use of the two automobiles was 97%. In this case the Respondent has
accepted that all four vehicles were used by the Appellant in the course of
carrying on his duties of employment and has accepted the number of kilometres
that each vehicle was driven in the course of such employment. As well the
Respondent has agreed that the appropriate factor to be considered when determining
the percentage use of a vehicle is the number of kilometres driven. Once these
facts are accepted the “business” use of each vehicle is a simple calculation
and the only issue is the amount to be used in the denominator of the formula.
As set out above, I do not accept that the appropriate number to be used in the
denominator is the total number of kilometres that all of the vehicles were
driven. I do not agree that the Podlesny case can be distinguished.
[32] As noted by Associate Chief Justice Bowman (as he then was) it is not
appropriate for me to second guess the decision of the Appellant to use more
than one vehicle. The Appellant stated that he needed different vehicles for
different purposes. He called as a witness Mr. Heath who is a traffic engineer
with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, a customer of the Appellant’s
employer. Mr. Heath testified that the Appellant would deliver items from
time to time in the Expedition. He also testified that the Appellant would also
attend at meetings with him and others in the Mazda or the Porsche. Mr. Heath
on one occasion needed to attend a demonstration in Minneapolis but
would not fly. The Appellant drove Mr. Heath in one of his vehicles. The
Appellant would also the larger vehicles to transport heavy items to trade
shows.
[33] The Appellant stated that he would receive a bonus each year based on
the profitability of his division. He submitted a summary of his pay stub for
the period ending December 16, 2000 showing that he received a bonus for that
year of $45,000. The amount of his bonus for this one year exceeded the total
amount of the motor vehicle expenses claimed for both years.
[34] As a result I find that in this
case the amounts claimed by the Appellant were reasonable.
[35] The Appellant also raised an issue with respect to the Explorer. While
he was driving the Explorer in the course of carrying out his duties of
employment in 2000 he was involved in an accident. The amount of the deductible
under the insurance policy was $250. Based on the above formula, only 71.4% of
the amount incurred for the deductible would be permitted as a deduction in
computing his income for the purposes of the Act. For expenses that can
clearly be identified as having only been incurred while traveling in the course
of an office or employment, those amounts should be fully deductible and
therefore the amount that should have been allowed for the deductible under the
insurance policy should be $250 not $178. Therefore the Appellant is entitled
to an additional deduction of $72 in computing his income in 2000. If the
accident would have occurred while the vehicle was being used personally, then
no portion of the deductible amount under the insurance policy could be claimed
under paragraph 8(1)(h.1) of the Act. Expenses that can clearly be
identified as having only been incurred while traveling in the course of
performing the duties of employment are fully deductible and no portion of
those expenses that can be identified as only being incurred while traveling
for other reasons will be deductible under paragraph 8(1)(h.1) of the Act.
[36] As a result, the appeal is allowed, with costs, and this matter is
referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and
reassessment on the basis that the Appellant is entitled to the following
amounts as deductions under paragraph 8(1)(h.1) of the Act for 2000 and
2001 and the following amounts as deductions for capital cost allowance and
interest under paragraph 8(1)(j) of the Act for 2000 and 2001:
2000
|
Vehicle
|
Item
|
Amount
Allowed
|
|
Explorer
|
Maintenance
and Repairs
|
$358 + $72
= $430
|
|
|
Insurance
|
$1,142
|
|
|
Licence and
Registration
|
$53
|
|
|
Capital
Cost Allowance
|
$1,893
|
|
|
|
|
|
Porsche
|
Maintenance
and Repairs
|
$51
|
|
|
Insurance
|
$1,164
|
|
|
Licence and
Registration
|
$74
|
|
|
Capital
Cost Allowance
|
$3,784
|
|
|
Other – CAA
|
$87
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mazda
|
Maintenance
and Repairs
|
$299
|
|
|
Insurance
|
$902
|
|
|
Licence and
Registration
|
$64
|
|
|
Capital
Cost Allowance
|
$3,348
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expedition
|
Maintenance
and Repairs
|
$54
|
|
|
Insurance
|
$98
|
|
|
Licence and
Registration
|
$16
|
|
|
Capital
Cost Allowance
|
$6,471
|
|
|
Interest
|
$199
|
|
|
Other
|
$367
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total:
|
|
$20,496
|
2001
|
Vehicle
|
Item
|
Amount
Allowed
|
|
Explorer
|
Maintenance
and Repairs
|
$11
|
|
|
Insurance
|
$432
|
|
|
Licence and
Registration
|
$21
|
|
|
Capital
Cost Allowance
|
$0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Porsche
|
Maintenance
and Repairs
|
$0
|
|
|
Insurance
|
$547
|
|
|
Licence and
Registration
|
$74
|
|
|
Capital
Cost Allowance
|
$2,667
|
|
|
Other – CAA
|
$89
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mazda
|
Maintenance
and Repairs
|
$105
|
|
|
Insurance
|
$885
|
|
|
Licence and
Registration
|
$61
|
|
|
Capital
Cost Allowance
|
$2,186
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expedition
|
Maintenance
and Repairs
|
$125
|
|
|
Insurance
|
$350
|
|
|
Licence and
Registration
|
$74
|
|
|
Capital
Cost Allowance
|
$11,065
|
|
|
Interest
|
$2,631
|
|
|
Other
|
$0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total:
|
|
$21,323
|
Signed at Halifax, Nova Scotia,
this 29th day of April 2008.
“Wyman W. Webb”
Email this Content