Brulé,
TCJ:—This
is
an
appeal
involving
the
use
of
an
aircraft
and
the
permissibility
of
such
mode
of
transportation
by
a
commission
salesman.
The
appellant
is
a
life
insurance
salesman
living
in
Niagara
Falls.
On
many
occasions
during
the
1978
and
1979
taxation
years
he
used
his
aircraft
for
business
and
public
relation
purposes
and
claimed
as
an
expense
the
amount
of
$1,248.30
in
1978
and
$1,743.30
in
1979.
The
Minister
reassessed
the
appellant
disallowing
these
amounts
on
the
basis
that
these
expenses
incurred
by
the
appellant
with
respect
to
his
aircraft
were
not
expended
for
the
purpose
of
earning
income
from
employment.
Originally
the
appellant
was
advised
by
his
district
Revenue
Canada
Office
that:
The
expense
of
the
airplane
is
not
an
allowable
expense
since
you
are
not
required
to
maintain
an
aircraft
in
the
performance
of
your
duties.
Dealing
with
this
latter
matter
first
I
suggest
that
Revenue
Canada
was
wrong
in
its
advice
unless
the
appellant
was
an
employed
individual.
From
his
tax
returns
it
is
clearly
indicated
that
he
is
a
commissioned
salesman
and
remunerated
in
this
manner.
There
is
no
prohibition
in
paragraph
8(l)(f)
relied
upon
by
the
Minister
in
this
appeal
to
using
an
aircraft
and
reference
is
made
to
this
section
in
subsection
8(9)
which
reads
as
follows:
Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
of
this
Act,
the
aggregate
of
all
amounts,
each
of
which
is
an
amount
that
would
otherwise
be
deductible
by
a
taxpayer
pursuant
to
paragraph
(1)(f),
(h)
or
(j)
for
travelling
in
the
course
of
his
employment
in
an
aircraft
that
is
owned
or
rented
by
him,
may
not
exceed
an
amount
that
is
reasonable
in
the
circumstances
having
regard
to
the
relative
cost
and
availability
of
other
modes
of
transportation.
Realizing
that
the
use
of
an
aircraft
is
permissible
under
paragraph
8(l)(f)
it
then
becomes
necessary
to
decide
if
the
use
of
the
aircraft
by
the
appellant
was
for
the
purpose
of
earning
income
from
employment
and
that
the
costs
were
reasonable
in
relation
to
the
costs
and
availability
of
other
modes
of
transportation.
From
the
evidence
given
undoubtedly
the
appellant
used
the
aircraft
to
travel
to
points
in
the
vicinity
of
his
home
as
well
as
further
distances.
The
flights
in
the
immediate
area
were
more
of
a
public
relation
nature
than
for
actual
sales
purposes,
a
fact
that
is
evident
in
extracts
from
the
log
records
presented
to
the
Court.
As
to
the
cost
involved
the
appellant
had
only
claimed
0.25
per
mile,
mileage
being
calculated
by
length
of
time
in
the
air
and
cruising
speed
of
the
aircraft.
This
figure
represents
only
operating
costs
and
does
not
include
any
capital
cost
allowance.
It
appears
to
me
that
the
appellant,
at
least
on
many
occasions,
used
his
aircraft
to
his
advantage
in
selling
life
insurance
and
the
expense
charge
claimed
is
quite
reasonable.
The
one
factor
to
be
determined
relates
to
how
much
of
the
expense
claimed
is
truly
for
purposes
of
earning
income
as
envisaged
by
paragraph
8(1
)(f).
I
have
examined
the
extracts
and
while
it
is
difficult
to
be
completely
accurate
because
of
the
lack
of
detailed
information
it
is
certainly
possible
to
determine
that
the
cost
of
many
flights
by
the
appellant
was
properly
the
subject
of
an
expense
deduction.
From
that
determination
I
have
arbitrarily
placed
a
figure
of
one
half
of
the
expenses
claimed
for
1978
as
being
allowable
in
the
amount
of
$624.15
and
for
the
year
1979
of
three
quarters
of
the
amount
claimed
in
the
sum
of
$1,307.48.
Accordingly
the
appeal
in
respect
to
the
1978
and
1979
taxation
years
be
and
the
same
is
hereby
allowed
in
part
in
accordance
with
the
above
allowances
and
the
matter
is
referred
back
to
the
respondent
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment.
Appeal
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content