Citation: 2011 TCC 362
Date: 20110722
Docket: 2010-3806(IT)I
BETWEEN:
NABIL M. SAMAAN,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
For the Appellant: The Appellant himself
Counsel for the
Respondent: Ernesto Caceras
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered
orally from the bench
on June 20, 2011, in Toronto, Ontario.)
Paris
J.
[1] The Appellant is appealing the disallowance of certain
amounts claimed as expenses of his mobile optical service business in 2006 and
2007. The amounts were disallowed on the basis that they were personal or
living expenses of the Appellant, the deduction of which is prohibited under
paragraph 18(1)(h) of the Income Tax Act.
[2] The Appellant
conceded that he had claimed certain expenses twice in 2006 and 2007, in error:
fuel costs of $4,262.39, in 2006, and $3,149.47 in 2007; insurance of $2,400 in
2006 and $2,067 in 2007; interest of $850 in 2006; maintenance of $1,100 in
2007. He agreed that those amounts were not deductible, as well as the claim
for $918.12 related to clothing, $200 for supplies in 2006 and $1,895.88 for
telephone expenses, in 2007.
[3] With respect to
the remainder of the disallowed items, the Appellant testified that the
expenses were all incurred for his business, but provided few specifics to show
the business purpose of any particular item.
[4] The Minister of
National Revenue allowed him 17% and 19% on his total motor vehicle expenses as
a business expense, in 2006 and 2007, respectively. The Appellant presented a
one-page summary showing total business kilometers driven in 2006 as 23,026,
out of a total of 30,000 kilometers driven for all purposes. A similar sheet
for 2007 showed he had driven 15,000 kilometers for business, out of a total of
20,000 kilometers driven that year.
[5] These sheets
broke down travel into an estimated number of trips for particular areas of Toronto; it
appeared to have been created after the years in issue and to be an estimate of
the trips and distances driven. The number of trips shown was not tied to any
records of the Appellant's business activities that were created in 2006 or
2007, which casts doubt on their reliability. The Appellant has not shown that
these estimates are an accurate reflection of distances driven for business
purposes.
[6] Therefore, he
had not shown that he is entitled to additional deductions for motor vehicle
expenses. The onus is on the Appellant to prove the amount of his expenses,
including motor vehicle expenses, and his failure to keep proper records will
not excuse him from meeting this onus.
[7] The next
category of expenses in issue relates to meals and entertainment. Receipts for
the expenses were bundled together and amounts were totaled on adding machine
tapes for each year. The Appellant was unable to say what business purpose was
served by each expenditure, other than that they were to develop his clientele
and were spent at meetings with clients or potential clients. No log of these
expenditures was maintained and the Appellant could not connect any of the
receipts with any particular client.
[8] In one example,
when asked about certain claims for liquor that was purchased, he advised that
the item had been taken to a party to which he had been invited, with friends. He
said that he had handed out business cards at the party and so felt that the
liquor he had purchased was a business expense. It is apparent, though, that
the liquor was a gift to the Appellant's host when invited into a social event,
unconnected with his business. One cannot convert this obvious personal expense
into a business expense by handing out business cards while at a personal,
social function.
[9] In the bundle of
receipts, I also observed receipts for groceries and meat, as well as an order
for 13 large pizzas. It does not appear likely to me that these would be
business expenses related to the sale of optical products.
[10] The difficulty
for the Appellant is that by claiming the expenditures for doubtful items or
for liquor tied to a personal social event, this in turn casts doubt on the
legitimacy of the remaining expenditures for which the claim is made.
[11] I agree as well
with the observation of counsel for the Respondent that many of the receipts
show only one item on a meal purchase, and leads me to infer that the items
were for the Appellant's own consumption. In the absence of specific details
relating to these expenditures that would tie them to meetings with clients or
business purposes, the Appellant has not satisfied the onus of proving that
they were genuine business expenses.
[12] The Appellant did
not specifically challenge any other disallowed expenses or category of
expenses. Therefore, there is no basis to allow any deductions in excess of
those allowed by the Minister.
[13] Therefore, in the
absence of reasonable and reliable evidence to support that the disallowed
amounts were incurred for business purposes and were not personal expenses of
the Appellant, the reassessments must be upheld. For these reasons, the appeals
are dismissed.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 22nd day of July, 2011.
“Brent Paris”
CITATION: 2011 TCC 362
COURT FILE NO.: 2010-3806(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: NABIL M. SAMAAN AND
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: July 5, 2011
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BY: The Honourable Justice Brent Paris
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 22, 2011
APPEARANCES:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The
Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Ernesto Caceras
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name: N/A
Firm: N/A
For the
Respondent: Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
Email this Content