Date: 19991102
Docket: 98-1481(IT)I
BETWEEN:
P.K. SUNDARARAJAN,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Taylor, D.J.T.C.C.
[1] This is an appeal heard in Ottawa,
Ontario on September 9, 1999, against an assessment under the
Income Tax Act (the "Act") in which the
Respondent disallowed a claim of $1,472.00 as moving expenses for
the year 1996. Correspondence from Revenue Canada described the
basis of the amount as follows:
"You have not shown that the expenditures of $1,472.00
you claimed as a deduction from income are moving expenses under
subsection 62(3). Therefore, you are not entitled to a deduction
under subsection 62(1)."
[2] The Notice of Appeal read in
part:
"The dispute originates from Revenue Canada's
non-acceptance of the receipts produced in support of the Claim.
The sections of the income tax act cited by Revenue Canada in
their letter of 8 May 1998 do not explicitly make reference
to receipts. Such being the case, Revenue Canada not only ask for
receipts to support the claim, but, once the receipts were
produced, they ask for a particular kind of receipt, as well.
This should not be acceptable.
After all is said and done, the tax payer must have a sense of
being dealt with fairly and equitably, with common sense and
reasonableness as the driving forces in such matters."
[3] From the Reply to the Notice of
Appeal, the following sets out the Respondent's position:
"In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the
following assumptions of fact:
a) in
connection with the commencement of a (sic) employment, on August
24, 1995, the Appellant moved from Ottawa to Toronto;
b) the
Minister disallowed, among others, the following amounts as
moving expenses:
i)
transporting
furniture
$748
ii) transporting
a
piano
$250
iii) rent (York
University)
$300
c) the
Minister disallowed the amounts of $748 and $250 because the
receipts submitted supporting the said expenses were not
containing pertinent information, as what kind of services were
rendered and who performed it;
d) the
expenses for rent were disallowed because no receipt has been
submitted by the Appellant."
[4] After a lengthy and argumentive
hearing all of which touched on the acceptability of receipts -
there origin, form, etc., the Court raised with the parties that
there did not appear to be conformity by the Appellant with the
opening words of section 62 of the Act: "Where a
taxpayer has, at any time, commenced (a) to carry on a business
or to be employed at a location in Canada (in this subsection
referred to as "the new work location", or ...".
There was no evidence that the Appellant had "commenced --
to be employed" as I comprehended the information. Indeed
the following exchange took place with the Appellant:
"And during this time and for some time thereafter, as I
follow your testimony, you were in the process of looking for new
employment; am I correct on that?
No, I did not look for new employment, Your Honour, the
employment came my way. I had absolutely no plans to work, except
as a cook and a cleaner at home."
[5] Probably for the most laudable of
reasons, the Appellant moved to Toronto from Ottawa, and assisted
his daughter with her university education by acting as "a
cook and a cleaner at home" - that is in her home or more
accurately her apartment. Other than for that objective - not as
employment - the Appellant had no purpose for the move to
Toronto, at the time of the move. Apparently, for some
lengthy time thereafter, he had no employment as such and the
testimony does not indicate that he ever did get such
employment.
[6] I have reviewed the relevant case
law - as I see it, thinking there might have been some moderation
or clarification in recent jurisprudence, which would permit the
Respondent to use the phrase from the Reply to the Notice of
Appeal (supra):
"in connection with the commencement of a (sic)
employment, on August 24, 1995, the Appellant moved from Ottawa
to Toronto;"
I was unable to find any.
[7] In my view this Appellant has
failed to meet the basic requirement under section 62 of the
Act, irrespective of the propriety of the receipts for
which he has claimed a deduction. I would add however, that in
the event this situation (lack of compliance with "commenced
-- to be employed" should appear insufficient to dismiss the
appeal, the evidence and testimony brought forward by the
Appellant in support of the receipts was so woefully inadequate,
and indeed farcical that the Respondent was fully justified in
disallowing the claim.
[8] The appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of November 1999.
D.J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
98-1481(IT)I
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
P.K. Sundararajan and H.M.Q.
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF
HEARING:
September 9, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable
Deputy Judge D.E. Taylor
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
November 2, 1999
APPEARANCES:
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Cathy
Chalifour
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
Email this Content