|
Docket: 2001-4495(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
DARRELL PETROWSKY,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard on November 22, 2002 at Regina,
Saskatchewan
|
Before: The Honourable
Judge L.M. Little
|
|
|
|
Appearances:
|
|
|
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant
himself
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Anne Jinnouchi
|
____________________________________________________________________
AMENDED JUDGMENT
The appeals from the assessments made under the Income Tax Act
for the 1998 and 1999 taxation years are allowed, without costs, and the
assessments are referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for
reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the attached Reasons for
Judgment.
Signed at
Vancouver, Canada, this 27th day of June 2003.
J.T.C.C.
|
Citation: 2003TCC434
|
|
Date:20030627
|
|
Docket: 2001-4495(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
DARRELL PETROWSKY,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
AMENDED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Little, J.
A. FACTS
[1] The
Appellant's appeals were heard in Regina, Saskatchewan on November 22,
2002.
[2] Reasons
for Judgment were issued on the 9th day of December 2002 allowing some of the
items under appeal.
[3] In
a letter dated December 28, 2002 Ms. Anne Jinnouchi, counsel for the
Respondent, requested clarification "on whether the Minister properly
restricted the capital cost allowance in the 1998 and 1999 taxation years
pursuant to subsections 1100(15) and 1100(17) of the Income Tax Regulations".
[4] I
have now had an opportunity to review the Court record and the questions raised
by counsel for the Respondent. I have concluded that the Appellant is precluded
from claiming capital cost allowance on the computer, the garage heater and the
cellular telephone by virtue of Regulation 1100(15). I have therefore concluded
that the comments contained in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Reasons for Judgment
should be eliminated.
[5] In
the course of reviewing the file I have concluded that the Appellant should be
allowed to deduct the amount of $399.00 (amount paid for cellular phone) in
determining his income for the 1998 taxation year.
[6] The
Appellant testified that he purchased the cellular phone for the snowmobile
rental business. The Appellant said that he required a cellular phone to handle
breakdowns of snowmobiles that had to be dealt with immediately. I have
concluded that the cost of the cellular phone is a deductible business expense.
Signed at Vancouver, Canada, this 27th day
of June 2003.
J.T.C.C.
|
COURT FILE NO.:
|
2001-4495(T)I
|
|
STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
Darrell
Petrowsky and
Her Majesty the
Queen
|
|
PLACE OF
HEARING:
|
Regina,
Saskatchewan
|
|
DATE OF HEARING:
|
November 22,
2002
|
|
AMENDED REASONS
FOR
JUDGMENT BY:
|
The Honourable
Judge L.M. Little
|
|
DATE OF AMENDED
JUDGMENT:
|
June 27, 2003
|
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant
himself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Anne Jinnouchi
|
|
For the
Respondent:
|
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney
General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
|