Heald,
J.A.:
—
We
have
not
been
persuaded
that
the
learned
trial
judge
has
committed
any
error
that
would
require
the
intervention
of
this
Court.
On
the
issue
of
the
mortgage
interest
expenses,
the
learned
trial
judge
correctly
applied
the
principle
that
in
matters
of
this
kind,
Courts
must
deal
with
what
a
taxpayer
actually
did
and
not
with
what
he
might
have
done.
In
the
case
at
bar,
pursuant
to
paragraph
six
of
the
agreed
statement
of
facts
(A.B.
P154)
the
appellant
used
the
entire
proceeds
from
the
second
mortgage
on
his
rental
property
for
a
deposit
on
the
purchase
price
of
his
principal
residence.
Accordingly,
it
is
clear
that
the
appellant
is
not
entitled
to
claim
the
mortgage
interest
on
that
second
mortgage
as
a
deduction
pursuant
to
subparagraph
20(1)(c)(i)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
since
it
cannot
be
said
to
be
interest
on
borrowed
money
used
for
the
purpose
of
earning
income
from
a
property.
On
the
second
issue
of
the
deductibility
of
business
expenses
for
which
no
records
or
receipts
had
been
produced
prior
to
the
hearing
before
the
trial
judge,
we
are
of
the
view
that
he
was
entitled
to
conclude,
as
he
did,
that
the
appellant
had
not
tendered
acceptable
evidence
warranting
the
allowance
of
any
of
the
items
claimed
as
deductible
expenses.
Accordingly,
the
appeal
is
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content