Date:
20020725
Docket:
2001-3388-IT-I
BETWEEN:
VALENTINE
BAIER,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons
for judgment
(Delivered
orally at Calgary, Alberta on June 6, 2002
and
subsequently edited as to form)
Bonner,
T.C.J.
[1]
I think that neither of you has
acted very well in trying to straighten out this thing before
coming to court to deal with the matter.
[2]
Nevertheless, I have the
uncontroverted evidence of the Appellant with respect to the
errors and the failures to take proper account of additions over
the years, as indicated in the bundle of CCA calculations marked
Exhibit A-2. The evidence of the Appellant, although
not supported by vouchers and original purchase records relating
to the acquisitions of the vehicles is not inherently incredible.
I do not have any reason to reject it.
[3]
What is the consequence of that?
The consequence appears to be that for the 1997 taxation year the
Appellant was entitled to $6,645.33 in capital cost allowance in
respect of property described in class 10 of schedule 2
minus the $1,329.62. Therefore, the Appellant is entitled to
additional capital cost allowance in 1997 of $5,315.75. That
relief is in addition to the matters in respect of which the
parties have already consented, as indicated at the beginning of
the hearing, and in respect of which a written consent to
judgment is to be filed. So judgment will go allowing the relief,
which the parties are to address in the consent to be filed and,
in addition, allowing further capital cost allowance in the 1997
taxation year in respect of property described in class 10 in the
amount of $5,315.73.
[4]
Although the Appellant has derived
some relief, the responsibility for the need for a hearing at all
in this case rests on his shoulders as much as on the
Crown's. Communications seem to have broken down. There will
be no costs.
Signed at
Ottawa, Canada, this 25th day of July 2002.
T.C.J.
Email this Content