D
E
Taylor
[TRANSLATION]:—This
appeal,
heard
in
the
city
of
Montreal,
Quebec
on
November
18,
1980,
was
brought
from
an
income
tax
assessment
in
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
included
in
the
calculation
of
the
appellant’s
income
for
1976
an
amount
of
$1,402,
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
subsections
5(1),
6(1)
and
15(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63,
as
amended.
Although
the
hearing
was
held
in
French,
some
documents
were
filed
in
English,
and
the
Board
cites
a
portion
thereof:
Notice
of
Appeal
Dear
Sir,
I
am
submitting
an
appeal
to
the
tax
review
board
in
accordance
with
article
169
60
171
of
the
income
tax
act.
I
believe
that
this
appeal
will
be
in
vain
in
view
of
the
past
correspondence
with
your
people.
I
will
therefore
try
to
give
you
my
version,
which
you
might
not
even
consider,
but
rest
assured
I
have
no
intention
of
being
singled
out
to
pay
income
tax
on
company
business
trips.
On
November
3rd
1978,
I
submitted
a
notice
of
objection
to
the
local
office
of
the
Department
of
Revenue.
After
going
through
half
a
dozen
hands,
I
received
a
notification
of
confirmation
by
the
Minister.
I
fail
to
understand
the
decision
reached
by
your
Minister
in
view
of
the
fact
that
a
few
weeks
prior
to
this
notice,
I
received
a
phone
call
from
one
of
the
individuals
who
handled
my
case
requesting
further
information
and
proof
of
my
business
trip
to
Haiti.
I
notified
him
then,
that
although
I
had
written
to
three
people
whom
I
contacted
in
Haiti,
requesting
confirmation
of
our
meeting,
the
chances
are
slim
I
will
get
an
answer,
or
that
they
have
received
my
letters,
and
would
recall
the
meetings.
However
I
did
meet
several
people
at
the
Canadian
High
Commission
Office
on
my
visit
there,
and
signed
my
name
in
a
log
book.
I
am
still
awaiting
their
replies
to
my
letters
and
enclose
herewith
copies
of
my
letter
to
your
people
and
other
data
pertaining
to
this
case.
Also,
I
would
like
to
make
a
personal
observation
of
the
Revenue
Department.
How
come
the
department
takes
the
view
that
a
person
is
guilty
of
tax
evasion
without
investigating
the
case
thoroughly
and
have
justifiable
cause
for
asserting
same.
Since
I
have
been
dealing
with
you,
I
have
been
treated
like
a
criminal.
I
have
been
paying
income
taxes
for
over
25
years
now
and
have
never
been
subject
to
this
type
of
harassment.
I
can
assure
you
it
is
not
a
pleasure
dealing
with
cold
and
callous
“fonctionnaires”.
I
hope
this
new
government
will
clean
up
this
holocaust
soon,
for
it
is
badly
in
need
of
an
overhaul.
Do
not
feel
offended,
I
am
the
one
who
has
been
mistreated.
I
will
survive,
but
how
long
to
you
think
the‘System’
would.
(Signed)
Conrad
P
Godbout
Reply
to
Notice
of
Appeal
6.
In
re-assessing
the
Appellant
in
respect
of
his
1976
taxation
year,
the
Respondent
relied
inter
alia,
upon
the
following
assumptions
of
facts:
(a)
During
his
1976
taxation
year,
the
Appellant
was
the
president
of
the
company
Construction
Internationale
Canaque
Inc.;
(the
“Company”)
(b)
During
the
said
period,
the
Appellant
was
also
the
principal
shareholder
of
the
Company;
(c)
During
the
month
of
(June)
1978,
the
Appellant
made
a
trip
to
Haiti;
(f)
The
Appellant
made
the
said
trip
with
his
wife
.
.
.
and
with
his
child;
(g)
The
expenses
incurred
by
the
Appellant
.
..
were
reimbursed
by
the
Company;
(h)
The
Appellant
has
not
presented
to
the
Respondent
vouchers
or
documents
proving
that
this
trip
has
been
done
for
the
purpose
of
promoting
the
business
of
the
Company.
The
appellant’s
testimony
showed
that
he
travelled
to
Haiti
with
his
family
for
a
vacation.
He
paid
for
the
tickets
for
the
trip
himself,
but
he
noted
that
while
he
was
on
vacation
he
looked
into
the
possibility
of
finding
contracts
for
the
company.
The
expenses
claimed
are
as
follows:
CANAQUE
INTERNATIONAL
CONSTRUCTION
INC.
EXPENSE
STATEMENT
—
RELEVE
DE
DEPENSES
Name
of
Employee
Project
No
Nom
de
(’Employé
CONRAD
P
GODBOUT
No
de
Projet
TRIP
TO
HAITI
Date
of
Expenses
Amount
Date
des
Description
Montant
Date
des
Dépenses
Montant
June
4.
76
TOURIST
CARDS
3
PERSONS
6.00
July
3.
76
HAITI
AIR
2
PERSONS
36.00
d
American
Airlines
Waybill
56.65
5/7/76
LIVING
ACCOMMODATION
PORT
AU
PRINCE
450.00
28/6/76
International
Car
Rental
120.00
3/7/76
Restaurant
Receipt
4.20
24/6/76
India
Palace
15.00
1/7/76
Pension
Brise
de
Mer
40.00
Misc.
Expenses
150.00
Tips
&
Gratuities
50.00
Misc.
Meals
100.00
Entertainment
200.00
Gasoline
for
rental
cars
75.00
Also
misc.
charges
—
|
Taxis
&
Transportation
|
100.00
|
|
1,402.00
|
|
Total
Amount
of
Expenses
|
|
|
Montant
Total
des
Dépenses:
|
$1,402.00
|
|
|
DATE
|
20/7/76
|
Signature
|
Conrad
P
God
bout
|
It
is
quite
possible
that
the
appellant
worked
during
the
weeks
of
vacation
he
spent
in
Haiti,
and
that
certain
of
his
expenses
are
deductible
(possibly
even
all
of
them).
However,
the
purpose
of
the
trip
was
a
vacation;
the
appellant
took
along
his
family;
he
paid
for
his
own
tickets;
and
because
he
was
also
president
of
the
company,
no
one
was
in
a
position
to
ask
him
for
details
and
supporting
documents
relating
to
his
trip.
The
fact
that
the
company
paid
him
the
amount
in
question
in
the
circumstances
is
not
sufficient
reason
for
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
to
allow
the
said
amount
as
a
reduction
of
appellant’s
personal
income.
I
refer
to
Ft
M
Latta
and
Active
Petroleum
Products
Ltd
v
MNR,
[1978]
CTC
3003;
78
DTC
1719,
and
in
particular
3010
and
1725
respectively:
The
Board
is
asked
to
simply
accept
the
statement
of
the
President
Latta
that
he
is
Satisfied
the
employee
Latta
spent
the
allowance
on
behalf
of
the
Company,
and
the
purpose
was
to
gain
or
produce
income.
The
Board
respects
the
President’s
confidence
in
his
employee
and
regards
this
alleged
disposition
as
quite
possible
but
that
does
not
fulfill
in
any
way
the
onus
placed
upon
the
appellant
to
displace
the
Minister’s
assumptions
when
called
upon
to
do
so.
The
basic
decision
of
the
Company
not
to
require
regular
confirmation
from
the
employee
regarding
the
nature
and
extent
of
the
expenditures
was
a
conscious,
deliberate
one,
even
if
taken
to
simplify
business
procedures
and
record
keeping.
For
all
the
foregoing
reasons,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content