Taylor,
TCJ:—This
is
an
appeal
heard
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
on
June
21,
1984
against
income
tax
assessments
for
the
years
1978
and
1979
in
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
disallowed
as
deductions
amounts
claimed
by
the
appellant
as
expenses
in
connection
with
the
operation
of
his
law
practice
as
follows:
|
Loan
|
Office
and
Personal
|
|
Interest
|
Residence
|
|
1978
|
$1,076
|
$595
|
|
1979
|
|
606
|
Before
disallowing
the
amount
noted
above
for
interest,
$1,076,
the
Minister
had
already
allowed
an
amount
of
$2,874,
out
of
the
total
claimed
of
$3,950
for
1978.
The
Minister’s
rationale
for
allowing
that
portion
was
that
some
part
of
the
loan
could
be
attributed
to
use
in
his
law
business,
but
the
balance
of
the
loan
was
due
to
personal
drawings
of
the
appellant
in
excess
of
profits
earned.
Even
accepting
that
rather
sketchy
logic
by
the
Minister,
the
Court
is
unable
to
see
how
the
appellant
could
possibly
claim
more
based
on
the
information
supplied
in
his
tax
return.
With
regard
to
the
other
items,
the
only
support
provided
for
such
a
“residence
cum
office’’
(in
effect
a
second
office)
charge
was
that
which
can
be
read
in
J
Vincent
Toolsie
v
MNR,
([1980]
CTC
2239;
80
DTC
1209)
as
follows:
On
the
basis
of
the
evidence
given
by
the
appellant,
I
am
satisfied
that
the
appellant
did
maintain
an
office
in
his
residence
for
the
purpose
of
carrying
on
his
legal
practice
and
that
the
amounts
of
$368.93
and
$250.90
claimed
by
him
in
the
1973
and
1974
taxation
years
appear
to
me
to
be
reasonable
expenses.
It
cannot
be
determined
from
the
written
judgment
in
Toolsie,
(supra),
the
“basis
of
the
evidence’’
considered
adequate,
but
I
did
not
hear
anything
of
that
character
in
this
appeal.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content