|
Docket: 2005-2555(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
CLAUDE CHRÉTIEN,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
And
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL
ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
|
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard on September 25, 2006, at Québec,
Quebec.
|
Before: The
Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
|
|
|
|
Appearances:
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the
Appellant:
|
Marcel Turgeon
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Alain Gareau
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeals from the assessments made under
the Income Tax Act for the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years are
dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada,
this 18th day of October 2006.
Tardif
J.
Translation
certified true
on this 18th day of
July 2007.
Brian McCordick,
Translator
|
Citation: 2006TCC542
|
|
Date: 20061018
|
|
Docket: 2005-2555(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
CLAUDE CHRÉTIEN,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL
ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tardif J.
[1] These
appeals pertain to the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years.
[2] In making and
confirming the assessments under appeal, the Respondent relied on the following
assumptions of fact:
[TRANSLATION]
(a) During
the years in issue, the Appellant was employed by CN as a trackman.
(b) The
Appellant must travel in his own vehicle as part of his employment.
(c) In
accordance with the collective agreement, the Appellant received a reasonable
non-taxable allowance from his employer for each of the taxation years in issue
in order to cover his employment-related travel expenses.
(d) On
October 17,
2003, the
Minister asked the Appellant, in writing, to submit the documents supporting
his claim.
(e) This
request was made again on March 22, 2005, during a telephone
conversation between the Appellant's representative and the objections officer.
(f) Despite
the Minister's repeated requests, the Appellant provided no travel log or other
supporting documents pertaining to the expenses incurred for his
employment-related travel.
[3] The issue to be determined is whether the Minister of National
Revenue properly disallowed the employment-related expenses claimed by the
Appellant for the taxation years in issue.
[4] The
burden of proof in this regard was on the Appellant. In other words, the
Appellant had to show, on a balance of probabilities, that his allegations were
well‑founded. One cannot meet this evidentiary burden merely by
expressing disagreement with the assessment and making vague and general
assertions regarding one's claims.
[5] It
is essential to submit thorough and detailed evidence justifying one's
assertions. In addition, such evidence must be validated or confirmed by
reliable and persuasive documents or evidence. Circumstantial evidence that is
essentially oral is certainly not sufficient to discharge such an evidentiary
burden.
[6] The
evidence in the case at bar essentially consisted of the testimony of the
Appellant and his spouse. His spouse, who managed the family finances, made
general and vague statements to the effect that the employer's expense
reimbursements were unsatisfactory and did not cover all the actual costs.
[7] No
supporting documents were provided, and the explanations were essentially
general and interspersed with comments or expressions like "I don't
recall, but I think it was in that ballpark." Such evidence certainly
does not meet the minimal criteria to be taken into consideration.
[8] Where
lodging, fuel and meal expenses are concerned, relevant receipts, records or
documents attesting to the expenses are the only evidence that possesses
reliability worthy of consideration.
[9] It
would simply be unacceptable, in a system based on self-assessment, to accept
explanations that are essentially oral, confused and general.
[10] Expenses can only be established through unambiguous evidence, and in
order for evidence to be persuasive and determinative, it must be supported by
appropriate documents that allow reliable findings to be made.
[11] In the case at bar, it is clear that the Appellant has not adduced
evidence that possesses the minimal characteristics to be considered.
Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 18th day of October 2006.
Tardif
J.
Translation
certified true
on this 18th day of
July 2007.
Brian McCordick,
Translator
Email this Content