Beaubier T.C.J.:
1 This appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on June 26, 1997. The Appellant was the only witness.
2 The Appellant appealed the disallowance of claims for deducted meals in the amount of $3,643.20 in 1992 and $4,822.00 in 1993.
3 The Minister's assumptions read as follows:
6. In so reassessing the appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact:(a) the Appellant was an employee of Koch Oil Co. Ltd., (the “Employer”) during the 1992 and 1993 taxation years;
(b) the Appellant was employed as a truck driver in the 1992 and 1993 taxation years;
(c) the Employer's principal business was not passenger, goods, or passenger and goods transport;
(d) the appellant was not required by his duties of employment to be away, for a period of more than twelve hours, from the municipality where the Employer's work location was located;
(e) the meals expense claimed in the amount of $3,643.20 in 1992 and $4,822.00 in 1993 have not been shown to have been incurred by the Appellant;
(f) the appellant has not filed with his returns, a prescribed form, signed by the Employer, certifying that the conditions of paragraph 8(1)(h) of the Income Tax Act, (the “Act”) have been met.
4 Assumptions (a) and (b) are correct. The Appellant proved that his duties required him to be away from the municipality where the employer's work location was for 121 days in 1993 and 90 days in 1992. His claimed expenses were in records which he brought to the Court. He stated that he incurred them and he was not cross-examined on that or in respect to the records presented. The expenses claimed were for 231 days in 1993 and 184 days in 1992.
5 The Appellant testified that he filed a completed prescribed form in both years. Such a form was attached to his 1992 income tax return which was exhibited as R-1. This testimony is accepted.
6 Thus, assumption (d) is in dispute. The Respondent filed the employer's Memorandum of Association - Certificate of Continuance and Registration in Saskatchewan as Exhibits R-2 and R-3. The employer's object to “operate, maintain and control ... transportation facilities ... for ... transporting, storing, delivering and marketing oil or gas and other liquid.” (Memorandum, paragraph 2.(a)) “To furnish motor vehicles ... employed ... in the transporting and/or marketing of such substances” (Memorandum, paragraph 2.(d)). The Appellant testified that the employer's business is transportation. He drove a truck transporting crude oil, gasoline and diesel fuel for his employer in southern Saskatchewan and Alberta as did many other of the employer's drivers. Once again, the Appellant's testimony is accepted.
7 In the Court's view the transporting of oil and gas is the transportation of goods. Pursuant thereto the Appellant regularly traveled away from the municipality where the employer's establishment to which he reported for work was located at Gull Lake, Saskatchewan on trucks used by the employer to transport goods. While so away he was required to make disbursements for meals. There is no dispute that the Appellant was not reimbursed for those meals and was not entitled to be reimbursed. The Appellant claimed 80% of his disbursements for 1992 and 1993. The amount is not in dispute.
8 The Appellant has proved that assumptions (c), (e) and (f) are wrong. He has met the requirements of the Income Tax Act. He is allowed his claim for 121/231 days in 1993, equalling the sum of 121/231 × $4,822 = $2,525.80. He is allowed his claim for 90/184 days in 1992, equalling the sum of 90/184 × $3,643.20 = $1,782.00.
9 The Appellant had to travel to Saskatoon from Gull Lake, Saskatchewan to conduct his appeal. That is a round-trip distance of over 650 km. In addition, due to the timing of the appeal in the Court day, he had to stay over-night and to obtain three meals. He is awarded the sum of $300 on account of his disbursements incurred in conducting his appeal.
Email this Content