Couture,
C.J.T.C.
[Translation]:—The
appellant
is
appealing
from
assessments
issued
by
the
respondent
in
respect
of
the
1980
and
1981
taxation
years.
Pursuant
to
the
said
assessments,
the
respondent
disallowed
the
appellant's
deduction
for
expenses
of
$10,003.59
in
respect
of
the
1980
taxation
year
and
$9,910.87
in
respect
of
the
1981
taxation
year
in
computing
his
income.
The
appellant
is
a
salesman
on
commission
for
Leon's
Furniture
Limited,
a
department
store
in
Montréal,
according
to
the
appellant’s
testimony,
which
specializes
in
the
sale
of
furniture,
stoves,
refrigerators,
television
sets
and
other
household
furnishings.
He
testified
that
he
was
supposed
to
work
inside
the
store
40
hours
one
week
and
32
hours
the
next
week.
This
arrangement
gave
him
some
free
time
which
he
used
to
meet
clients
outside
the
store
in
order
to
promote
sales
and
thus
increase
his
commissions.
He
had
been
employed
by
the
company
since
1975
and
carried
on
his
duties
in
accordance
with
a
contract
which,
he
testified,
was
unique
to
him
since
it
was
not
necessarily
the
same
one
governing
the
other
sales
personnel.
Subject
to
objections
from
counsel
for
the
respondent
and
with
the
Court's
permission,
the
appellant
produced
this
contract
which
sets
out
his
general
conditions
of
work.
Mr.
Pierre
Ethier,
the
company's
assistant
manager,
who
testified
on
behalf
of
the
respondent,
provided
some
additional
details
regarding
the
conditions
of
work
for
company
sales
personnel,
and
these
also
applied
to
the
appellant
notwithstanding
his
special
contract.
Although
Mr.
Ethier
was
not
employed
by
the
company
in
1980
and
1981,
he
testified
that
those
conditions
were
in
effect
at
that
time.
According
to
his
testimony,
the
appellant
had
to
spend
40
hours
one
week
and
32
hours
the
following
week
at
the
store.
He
had
to
achieve
a
certain
annual
volume
of
sales,
and
it
made
no
difference
whether
these
sales
were
made
inside
or
outside
the
store
during
the
time
periods
mentioned
above.
The
management
imposed
no
obligation
on
its
sales
personnel
to
work
outside
the
store.
The
basic
obligation
of
every
salesman
was
to
work
the
prescribed
number
of
hours
inside
the
establishment
and
to
achieve
a
specified
sales
volume.
In
fact,
the
contract
of
employment
produced
by
the
appellant
contains
the
following
provision:
He
(the
appellant)
is
required,
if
he
wants
to
fluctuate
his
sales
in
the
interest
of
Leon
Furniture
and
his
own,
to
pursue
initiative
in
the
store
or
elsewhere.
In
my
opinion,
this
provision
cannot
be
construed
as
creating
an
obligation
on
the
appellant
to
work
away
from
the
place
of
business.
The
respondent
disallowed
the
expenses
claimed
by
the
appellant
on
the
basis
that
the
latter
was
not
ordinarily
required
to
carry
on
the
duties
of
his
employment
away
from
his
employer's
place
of
business
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
subparagraph
8(1)(f)(ii)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(the
Act).
In
view
of
the
evidence
produced
at
the
hearing
of
this
appeal
and
the
absence
of
any
formal
obligation
on
the
appellant
under
his
contract
of
employment
that
he
carry
on
the
duties
of
his
employment
away
from
his
employer's
place
of
business,
I
must
dismiss
the
appeal,
since
the
expenses
claimed
by
the
appellant
in
respect
of
1980
and
1981
were
not
incurred
strictly
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
subparagraph
8(1)(f)(ii)
of
the
Act.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content