Brulé T.C.J.:
1 The Appellant brings this appeal against an assessment under the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) for the year 1991, as confirmed by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) on December 6, 1996. The appeal involves the Appellant's share of a loss claimed by him in a partnership with his ex-wife and another.
Facts
2 In the taxation year in question the Appellant claimed a business loss of $21,200.38 as his share of a business called Studio Dynasty Hair Design. This business claimed to be a partnership which was 25% owned by the Appellant, 25% owned by the Appellant's former wife Suzanne Taylor (nee Guenette), and 50% owned by Constance Roberts. For business purposes this was registered with the province of Ontario under the names of S. Taylor and C. Roberts, but the Appellant and his ex-wife had entered into an agreement that they would share ownership, and the resulting profit, of half of this business. The Appellant's share of the loss was disallowed on assessment, on the grounds that he was not a partner in the venture because there was no partnership agreement with his ex-wife, at least not one entered into evidence.
Issue
3 The sole issue is whether the Appellant held a partnership in the business in the 1991 taxation year. The quantum of the loss is not in dispute.
Analysis
4 For there to be a partnership there must be evidence that such existed. There was no partnership agreement, no explanation of why the Appellant's name was not a part of the business registration, no evidence of the losses by way of business statements and above all no evidence by the persons involved in the business, namely the ex-wife and Constance Roberts. These persons along with the accountant could have been called as witnesses, if not voluntarily, by way of subpoenas.
5 The cases cited by the Appellant — Hansen v. Minister of National Revenue (1986), 86 D.T.C. 1697 (T.C.C.), Wessell v. Minister of National Revenue (1985), 85 D.T.C. 206 (T.C.C.)and Follett v. Minister of National Revenue (1987), 87 D.T.C. 328 (T.C.C.)— these may be easily be distinguished on their facts and have no bearing on the present appeal.
6 None of the eight exhibits offered by counsel for the Respondent disclosed the Appellant as being involved in the partnership.
7 The cases relied on by the Respondent were: Sedelnick Estate v. Minister of National Revenue (1986), 86 D.T.C. 1563 (T.C.C.), Travica v. Minister of National Revenue (1988), 88 D.T.C. 1260 (T.C.C.), Tarasow v. Minister of National Revenue (1981), 81 D.T.C. 462 (T.C.C.)and Beckmann v. Minister of National Revenue (1987), 87 D.T.C. 645 (T.C.C.). All of these cases lend support to the Respondent's counsel in his argument which results in the appeal being dismissed.
Email this Content