Roland
St-Onge:—The
appeal
of
Mr
W
C
Kennedy
came
before
me
at
Toronto,
Ontario
on
April
2,
1979,
and
the
issue
is
whether
the
appellant
is
allowed
to
deduct
certain
expenses
in
his
1976
taxation
year.
I
consider
that
the
respondent
has
proven
his
main
allegation
in
paragraph
4,
subparagraph
(a)
to
(i)
inclusive,
quoted
below:
4.
In
assessing
tax
as
aforesaid,
the
respondent
relied
upon
the
following
findings
or
assumptions
of
fact:
(a)
from
January
to
June,
1976,
the
appellant
was
a
salesman
employed
on
a
commission
basis
by
Kanematsu-Gosho
(Canada)
Limited;
(b)
the
appellant
was
unemployed
for
the
remainder
of
the
1976
taxation
year;
(c)
the
automobile
of
the
appellant
was
not
used
exclusively
for
the
purpose
of
his
employment
but
25%
of
the
use
to
which
the
automobile
was
put
was
attributable
to
the
personal
use
that
was
made
of
the
automobile
by
the
appellant;
(d)
the
automobile
expenses
which
the
appellant
sought
to
deduct
were
expenses
incurred
throughout
the
1976
taxation
year
and
were
not
limited
to
the
period
during
which
the
appellant
was
employed
by
the
aforesaid
employer;
(e)
at
the
end
of
the
1976
taxation
year
the
automobile
of
the
appellant
was
not
utilized
by
him
for
the
purposes
of
his
employment;
(f)
one-third
of
the
amount
of
advertising
expenses
incurred
by
the
appellant
in
the
amount
of
$722.24
were
personal
expenses;
(g)
the
“other
expenses”
claimed
by
the
appellant
were
not
limited
to
the
period
during
which
he
was
employed
and
were
not
fully
supported
by
means
of
vouchers;
(h)
the
appellant
was
reimbursed
by
his
employer
for
mileage,
entertainment
and
travel
in
the
amounts
of
$915.15,
$319.33
and
$95.10
respectively;
(i)
in
computing
the
appellant’s
income
for
the
1976
taxation
year,
no
amount
was
deductible
under
paragraph
8(1)(f)
since
an
amount
had
been
deducted
under
paragraph
8(1)(a)
in
computing
the
appellant’s
income
for
the
year.
The
board
allows
the
appeal
in
part
to
the
extent
that,
in
the
matter
of
the
use
of
the
appellant’s
automobiles
for
business
purposes,
the
deduction
will
be
85%
instead
of
75%.
In
all
other
respects,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Consequently,
the
appeal
is
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content