Bonner,
TCJ
[ORALLY]:—This
is
an
appeal
from
an
assessment
of
income
tax
for
the
appellant’s
1983
taxation
year.
At
issue
is
the
deductibility
of
$1,299
which
is
the
total
of
amounts
claimed
as
promotion,
long
distance
telephone
and
parking
charges.
Those
costs
relate
to
the
entertainment
of
stockbrokers
with
whom
the
appellant
dealt,
contacting
them
by
long
distance
telephone
when
the
appellant
happened
to
be
way
from
Ottawa
and
parking
at
times
when
the
appellant,
for
example,
had
to
attend
at
the
broker's
office
to
deliver
certificates
for
securities
sold.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
argued
with
reference
to
the
decision
in
Mr
Q
v
MNR,
2
Tax
ABC
313;
50
DTC
372,
that
the
appellant’s
income
was
generated
by
property,
that
is
to
say,
it
was
income
from
stocks
and
bonds
and
that
nothing
that
the
appellant
did
could
possibly
have
generated
income
otherwise
than
in
relation
to
the
acquisition
and
disposition
of
securities.
The
argument
proceeded
that
the
costs
were
therefore
costs
of
acquisition
and
disposition.
In
my
view,
that
is
the
correct
manner
in
which
the
costs
should
be
viewed.
The
assessment
is
therefore
in
error
in
failing
to
allow
the
deduction
of
the
appropriate
amount
of
costs
of
those
three
classifications
as
either
costs
of
acquisition
or
disposition.
For
the
foregoing
reasons
the
appeal
will
be
allowed
and
the
assessment
referred
back
to
the
respondent
for
reconsideration
and
reasessment
on
the
basis
that
the
costs
in
issue
are
costs
of
acquisition
or
disposition
of
the
capital
assets
that
were
stocks
and
bonds
acquired
and
disposed
of
by
the
appellant
during
the
year
in
question.
In
this
respect
I
would
suggest
that
the
parties
take
a
look
at
my
earlier
decision
and
the
decision
of
the
Federal
Court
—
Trial
Division
on
appeal
therefrom
in
Leonard
R
Young,
83
DTC
5408
(FCTD).
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content