O’Connor
T.C.J.:
I
have
sketched
this
out,
so
not
every
word
may
be
perfect.
Firstly
I’m
satisfied
that
the
amount
of
the
expenses
claimed
in
1991
for
wages
and
for
stolen
articles
have
been
proven,
and
that
such
amounts
would
be
deductible
if
the
Appellant
was
carrying
on
a
business
with
a
reasonable
expectation
of
profit.
Counsel
for
the
Respondent
points
out
that
the
1991
expenses
related
to
basically
a
non-business
activity,
namely
collecting,
and
that
no
sales
of
those
collected
items
actually
occurred.
This
may
be
true,
but
on
the
other
hand
the
Appellant
spent
approximately
$14,000.00
to
repair
those
items
and
one
wonders
why
you
would
do
so
if
sales
in
the
future
were
not
contemplated.
Moreover,
the
Appellant
made
no
claim
for
expenses
specifically
related
to
several
items
which
were
also
stolen,
but
which
he
considered
personal,
including
some
carpets.
In
my
opinion,
in
other
words,
he
considered
the
collected
carpets
were
part
of
Scimitar’s
inventory.
Moreover,
considering
the
Appellant’s
background
and
knowledge
and
his
credibility,
which
is
totally
accepted,
considering
further
the
nature
of
the
business,
the
time
devoted,
the
improving
sales
picture,
I’m
of
the
view
that
a
business
was
carried
on
with
a
reasonable
expectation
of
profit.
There’s
an
element
of
per
sonal
involvement
which
in
some
cases
is
extremely
important,
but
in
my
opinion
the
personal
involvement
in
this
situation
cannot
alone
determine
the
issue.
In
conclusion,
the
Appellant
was
carrying
on
a
business
with
a
reasonable
expectation
of
profit.
Consequently,
the
appeal
is
allowed
with
costs.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content