Stone
J.A.:
This
is
an
application
under
section
28
of
the
Federal
Court
Act
to
review
and
set
aside
a
judgment
of
Rowe
DJTCC
of
November
28,
1997,
rejecting
the
applicant’s
appeals
from
assessments
for
the
taxation
years
1992,
1993
and
1994
on
the
ground
that
the
business
losses
which
the
applicant
sought
to
deduct
in
those
years
arose
out
of
activities
in
respect
of
which
he
had
no
reasonable
expectation
of
profit.
These
activities
consisted
of
producing
travel
videos
for
possible
future
presentation
on
television.
The
learned
Tax
Court
Judge
found
as
a
fact:
In
1992
through
1994,
he
was
working
full-time
with
the
Attorney
General’s
department
of
Ontario
in
a
position
which
required
him
to
work
hard
during
the
day
and
also
to
have
other
commitments,
on
occasion,
in
the
evenings.
He
began
filming
during
a
two
week
holiday
in
the
summer
or
other
times
and
then,
as
his
holiday
entitlement
expanded
up
to
five
weeks,
he
began
utilizing
five
weeks
of
his
time
to
travel
to
these
various
locations
and
to
undertake
the
necessary
film
work.
He
also
found
that
these
activities
were
lacking
in
adequate
funding
and
that
no
income
has
been
generated
since
the
inception
of
the
concept
in
1988
up
until
the
date
of
the
hearing
before
him
in
November
1997.
The
Court
also
noted
that
many
of
the
expenses
claimed
“were
specifically
prohibited”
by
the
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Although
the
Tax
Court
Judge
considered
that
the
applicant
was
entitled
to
a
start-up
period
to
establish
the
intended
business,
he
was
equally
of
the
view
such
a
period
“cannot
last
forever”.
As
he
found
in
his
reasons
:
The
difficulty
is
to
determine
when
that
period
actually
starts.
And,
in
this
particular
instance
this
business
is
such
that,
as
the
appellant
put
it,
it
requires
all
of
the
pieces
of
the
jigsaw
puzzle
to
come
together.
It
is
a
difficult
venture
made
more
difficult
by
the
fact
that
he
is
working
full
time
and
needs
to
find
about
100
and
some
thousand
dollars,
or
more,
in
order
to
do
the
necessary
post-production
work
to
make
these
[the
videos]
saleable.
In
our
view,
the
applicant
has
failed
to
demonstrate
that
the
Tax
Court
erred
in
any
way
that
would
warrant
the
intervention
of
this
Court.
Accordingly,
the
section
28
application
will
be
dismissed.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content