Bonner,
T.C.C.J.
(orally):—
Well,
Mr.
Katzenstein,
I'm
going
to
dismiss
your
wife's
appeals.
There
are
two
taxation
years
involved,
1989
and
1990.
I
am
unable,
on
the
basis
of
what
has
been
put
forward
here
today,
to
reach
conclusion
that
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
has
erred
in
making
the
assessments
of
tax
that
are
under
appeal.
I
have
no
way
of
knowing
whether
your
wife,
the
appellant,
is
entitled
to
a
business
investment
loss.
Certainly
as
Ms.
Turner
pointed
out,
she
can'
deduct
the
losses
of
the
company,
directly.
There's
no
explanation
as
to
why
they
were
claimed
as
non-capital
losses.
There's
no
explanation
as
to
how
the
business
investment
loss
figures
were
arrived
at.
Assuming,
as
probably
is
the
case,
that
in
the
circumstances
it
can
be
found
that
the
company
became
indebted
to
your
wife,
there's
no
evidence
that
the
indebtedness
has
gone
bad.
There
are
no
business
characteristics
to
the
action
of
your
wife
in
paying
the
company's
liability
under
the
vehicle
lease.
There
was
no
documentation
of
the
loan,
there
was
no
agreement
to
repay
it,
there
was
no
agreement
to
pay
interest.
You
have
to
understand
that
when
you
come
here
to
appeal
from
an
assessment
of
income
tax
you
are
asking
the
Court
to
reach
a
conclusion
that
the
assessment
of
income
tax
is
wrong,
and
that
is
a
conclusion
that
can
only
be
based
on
proof
that
the
basis
on
which
the
Minister
assessed
is
in
error
either
in
fact
or
in
law.
Now,
the
facts
are
so
confused
that
nobody,
I’m
sure,
listening
to
the
evidence
today
could
reach
any
sort
of
a
conclusion
as
to
what
happened.
As
to
the
law,
the
best
you
could
say
is
that
you
are
"not
familiar
with
the
Income
Tax
Act’.
You
are
entitled
to
act
as
your
wife's
agent,
as
you
did
here
today.
Although
you
are
entitled
to
do
that,
some
people
are
competent
to
do
that
and
others
aren't,
and
it’s
quite
obvious
that
you're
not.
If
your
wife
has
a
case
it
hasn't
been
made
out,
and
l
therefore
must
dismiss
the
appeals.
Appeals
dismissed.
Email this Content