Van Vlasselaer v. The Queen, docket 1999-1117-IT-G

Date: 20010316

Docket: 1999-1117-IT-G

BETWEEN:

JEAN-JACQUES VAN VLASSELAER,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Reasons for Judgment

Lamarre, J.T.C.C.

[1]            These are appeals from assessments under the Income Tax Act ("Act") for the appellant's 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, whereby the Minister of National Revenue ("Minister") disallowed business losses claimed by the appellant. In fact, the business losses claimed by the appellant for 1991, 1992 and 1993, that is, amounts of $9,558, $19,002 and $15,140 respectively, were disallowed in their entirety, but for 1994, the Minister reduced by $6,014 the business loss of $8,151 claimed leaving, as I understand it, the balance of $2,137 as an allowable loss.

[2]            In so assessing the appellant, the Minister relied on the allegations of fact found in section 7 of the Amended Reply to the Notice of Appeal, which reads as follows:

(a)            At all material times the Appellant was employed by the Carleton University as a professor of Musicology and Linguistics and his annual earnings from that source for the 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years were respectively $70,821.00, $77,205.00, $80,686.00 and $80,958.00;

(b)            For approximately 20 years, the Appellant has been engaged in music critic and book writing activities (the "Activity") and reported losses and profit as shown on attached Schedule B;*

(c)            At all material times, the Appellant's source of revenue from the Activity was from Le Droit and CBC Radio;

(d)            The Appellant's travel expenses are in connection with trips made in various locations in North America and Europe;

(e)            The said travel expenses referred to in subparagraph 7(d) herein have not substantially resulted in any income to the Appellant as reported on his income tax returns for the 1995 to 1998 taxation years;

(f)             The Appellant is paid $80.00 per article from Le Droit;

(g)            All the Appellant's income from the Activity is from Canadian sources;

(h)            The Appellant's book Music and Science was published in 1995 as a limited university edition;

(i)             The profit motivation is not the main reason for the Activity;

(j)             The history of losses indicates a non-commercial intention;

(k)            The Appellant does not have a set plan of action to increase gross income;

(l)             The Appellant was given a reasonable number of years to demonstrate that the Activity was viable;

(m)           At all relevant times, the Appellant had no reasonable expectation of making of profit from the Activity and;

(n)            At all relevant times, the activity carried on by the Appellant was not a business and the expenses incurred by him were personal or living expenses.

____________________

*               For reasons of convenience, Schedule B is reproduced at the end of these Reasons for Judgment.

[3]            In paragraph 8 of the Amended Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the respondent further raised an alternative argument, which reads as follows:

8.             In the event that the Court rules that the Activity has a reasonable expectation of profit, the Minister asks that the losses from the Activity be reduced on the basis of the following assumptions:

                (a)            The previously made assumptions made in paragraph 7 herein;

                (b)            the Appellant's travel expenses were incurred to enhance his reputation as a music critic, to establish contacts for future Activity projects and to conduct research on future books;

                (c)           the Appellant's travel expenses are substantially not related to the Activity's current earning process;

                (d)            the Appellant's travel expenses are personal expenses;

                (e)            the Appellant's travel expenses are not reasonable;

                (f)             the Appellant's travel expenses should be restricted to [$1,838.55 in 1991, $1,469.72 in 1992, $737.48 in 1993 and $1,952.25 in 1994]; and

                (g)            the Appellant's Entertainment and Meal expenses for the 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years are personal expenses of the Appellant.

[4]            I heard the testimony of the appellant and of Shirley Beaudoin, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency ("CCRA"), auditor responsible for the appellant's file.

[5]            The appellant testified that he has been a teacher of linguistics and musicology at Carleton University in Ottawa since his arrival in Canada in 1968. His duties as a professor involved teaching, research and administration. Although that was a full-time job, the appellant testified that there was time left for his writing activity. Indeed, apart from producing numerous scholarly articles, the appellant had also been engaged for a number of years in music critique and review activities. For 30 years, he has been writing reviews for the newspaper Le Droit, for which he is paid $80 an article. He has made appearances on CBC Radio and has worked on the preparation of many programs for Radio-Canada.

[6]            In fact, during the years at issue, the appellant's total professional income, of $5,013 in 1991, $3,600 in 1992, $4,210 in 1993 and $5,934 in 1994 came from those two institutions, Le Droit and CBC Radio.

[7]            The appellant also made arrangements to write critical reviews for magazines published in Europe. According to the Notice of Appeal, he was also requested by a publishing house in Holland to write brochures and commentaries for CDs and music videos.

[8]            In addition, the appellant published two books on the language of science and of music in 1994 and 1995. Neither of these generated any income however. One of them was intended for a limited audience only, and the appellant testified that any profits from sales were to go to a non-profit organization. As for the other book, revenue from sales does not seem to have exceeded the publishing costs.

[9]            The appellant was also working in the years at issue, and is still working, on the publication of a biography of an Austrian composer (Viktor Ullmann) who is known to have composed music in a concentration camp during the Second World War. Unlike the two first books, this one is aimed at a general audience. The appellant is currently working with another musicologist in Europe on that project. He said that he had had to go to Prague to try to gather more information on the subject of the book, which, I gather, is not an easy task. I understand from the appellant's testimony that he was honoured in Austria with "la croix d'honneur en arts et en lettres" with respect to that research. The appellant testified that during the Easter holidays he would be meeting a publisher, Actes Sud, regarding the publication of this book, which he intends to publish before 2004, the year of the 60th anniversary of Viktor Ullmann's death. The appellant said that other publishing houses (notably Gallimard) have shown interest in the publication of the book.

[10]          The appellant has also been engaged in recent years in giving non-academic public lectures in Ottawa, most notably at the National Arts Centre, and also outside Ottawa. The appellant testified that he has been travelling to Montreal, New York and Europe for music festivals on which he has written articles. He also travelled to business meetings aimed at augmenting his credentials as an international music critic. The appellant is also a member of a few international music associations and has had to travel to attend some meetings.

[11]          In 1992, he was involved in a major car accident in South Africa during a family trip, which forced him to reduce his activities that year.

[12]          The appellant plans to retire from the university in four years after 35 years of service. Upon retirement he intends to concentrate on his writing activity. He has also recently set up a high-tech lab to work on the language of music, which might offer him better financial opportunities.

[13]          In cross-examination, the appellant said that he did not do a market analysis to find out if his book on Viktor Ullman would generate any profit. He did not know how much money he would be able to earn from the publication of this book. He recognized that most of his articles were part of his work as a professor, and that he was never paid for them.

[14]          The major expenses claimed by the appellant during the years at issue were travel expenses, telephone, business-use-of-home expenses and vehicle expenses. The statement of his income and expenses relating to his writing activity for the taxation years at issue is reproduced in Schedule A to the Amended Reply to the Notice of Appeal (and is attached hereto as part of these Reasons for Judgment).

[15]          The appellant has been claiming losses since 1982 when the newspaper Le Droit stopped paying his expenses. When he was audited in 1995, he changed his approach on the auditor's advice and combined several activities in order to lower expenses, which resulted in a profit for the 1995 and 1996 taxation years and no profit or loss in 1997. In 1998, he again showed a loss, which amounted to $2,890. The appellant said that from 1995 through 1998 inclusive, his travel expenses were reduced considerably. He tried to enter into more contracts with magazines in order to make more money from his writing.

[16]          The appellant explained that in the literary field, carrying out a market analysis may not be appropriate as the writing is more the result of inspiration than of a market study.

[17]          Ms. Shirley Beaudoin testified that she first verified the expenses and was able to relate them to the appellant's writing activity. However, the meal and entertainment expenses, travel expenses, dry cleaning expenses and bank charges were considered unreasonable and disallowed. Ms. Beaudoin further considered that the appellant did not show that there was a reasonable expectation of profit from his writing activity. She relied first of all on the fact that the expenses were considered disproportionate to income, and second, on the very long history of losses (13 years at the time of the audit). Ms. Beaudoin also considered that there was a personal element involved in the travel and meal and entertainment expenses. The appellant's wife is European and is operating a business in Europe. The appellant's mother and sister also live in Europe.

[18]          Ms. Beaudoin testified as well that even if she had concluded that there existed a reasonable expectation of profit, she would have disallowed some expenses as being personal in nature (travel expenses, meal expenses, telephone expenses and dry cleaning expenses, for example). As for the meal expenses, she said that the appellant was claiming half, while his wife was claiming the other half in her tax returns.

Appellant's argument

[19]          Counsel for the appellant referred first to the decision of the Exchequer Court of Canada in Royal Trust Co. v. M.N.R., [1957] CarswellNet 240, where President Thorson stated at paragraphs 32-33 that it is not a condition of the deductibility of an expense that it should result in any particular income and that an expense may be deductible even if it is not productive of any profit at all. It is the purpose of the expense that is emphasized and if an expense is incurred by a taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from his business, its amount should be deductible for income tax purposes.

[20]          However, it is my understanding that counsel for the appellant is not challenging the application of the reasonable expectation of profit test laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada in Moldowan v. The Queen, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 480, which test entails a stricter application of the business intention tests because of its objective nature, that is, the taxpayer must show that the profit motive is reasonable.

[21]          Counsel for the appellant relied, however, on the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Tonn v. The Queen, 1995 CarswellNet 884, at paragraph 39, to caution the Court not to police the business decisions of taxpayers from a position of hindsight.

[22]          Counsel submitted that a writer is not running a typical business. In that respect, he relied on Interpretation Bulletin IT-504R2 issued by the CCRA and dated August 9, 1995, which deals with the determination of income for income tax purposes of an artist or a writer. He relied particularly on paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of that Bulletin, which state, among other things, that the nature of art and literature is such that a considerable period of time may pass before a writer becomes established and profitable. Although the existence of a reasonable expectation of profit is relevant in determining the deductibility of losses, in the case of writers it is recognized that a longer period of time may be required in establishing that such reasonable expectation does exist. The Bulletin even says in paragraph 7 that in the case of an artist or a writer, it is possible that such a taxpayer may not realize a profit during his or her lifetime but still have a reasonable expectation of profit.

[23]          Counsel for the appellant therefore analyzed the appellant's situation in light of the factors that, according to paragraph 5 of the Bulletin, are considered in determining whether or not a writer has a reasonable expectation of profit.

[24]          Counsel suggested that the appellant devoted a great deal of time to his writing activity. The appellant's résumé (Exhibit A-1) shows that he was constantly engaged in presenting his work to the public through seminars or by other means. The appellant was represented by publishers for his first two books. Unfortunately, these books did not prove to be profitable but the appellant is very optimistic that his third book, on Viktor Ullmann, will be profitable. He is on the verge of signing a contract with a publisher, as at least two publishers have already shown interest. As to the promotion and marketing of his work, the appellant carried this out by being present at different events. Although the appellant's work did not generate profit, he received steady revenue from his writing activity. The one exception is 1992 when his revenue was lower due to a car accident he was involved in that year. The appellant received recognition in his field, an example of which being the medal he was awarded by the Austrian government for his leading role in music. The appellant is also a member of various professional writers' associations and is the vice-president of at least two of those associations. Finally, the appellant is not working exclusively on the publication of books for limited distribution but is seeking to widen the appeal of his literary work with a view to its sale to the general public.

[25]          Finally, counsel for the appellant submitted that although the appellant has a passion for what he is doing, this does not per se alter the business nature of his activity (this was an accepted view that was adopted by the Federal Court of Appeal in Kuhlmann v. The Queen, 1998 CarswellNet 2220).

[26]          Counsel for the appellant concluded that the appellant has shown that he had a reasonable expectation of profit. With respect to the alternative position taken by the respondent with respect to the travel and meal expenses that were found unreasonable by the Minister, the appellant submitted that he had to travel as he did not only to enhance his reputation but also in order to try to earn a profit from his writing.

Respondent's argument

[27]          Counsel for the respondent did not challenge what was said in Royal Trust Co., supra, cited by counsel for the appellant. However, she submitted that these principles apply only if the appellant can show that he was operating a business. According to Moldowan, supra, the appellant must show that he had a source of income with respect to his writing activity in order to prove the existence of a business, and in that regard he must show that he had either a profit or a reasonable expectation of profit.

[28]          Relying on the Tonn decision, counsel submitted that the application of this test should involve closer scrutiny where circumstances suggest that a personal or other-than-business motivation existed, or where the expectation of profit was so unreasonable as to raise a suspicion (Tonn, cf. paragraph 21, supra). Counsel also submitted that there are personal elements in the expenses claimed by the appellant. Indeed, he would still have travelled and used his car regardless of his writing activity.

[29]          For the purpose of determining whether the appellant can be objectively said to have had a reasonable expectation of profit, counsel relied on the different criteria developed in the case law, particularly in Moldowan, supra, and in Landry v. The Queen, 94 DTC 6624.

[30]          She submitted that the evidence revealed a lack of planning, a low level of activity and a sort of indifference by the appellant as to the market demand. Counsel submitted that the appellant has not yet signed a contract with any publisher for his book on Viktor Ullmann. He does not work through an agent and does not advertise his work. According to counsel, the appellant travels to improve his credentials. He has had enough time in the past to show that there could be a reasonable expectation of profit from his writing activity. After 13 years of losses, it can no longer be argued that there was such an expectation. According to counsel, the appellant held full-time employment and this left him with little time to increase the income from his writing activity. The rise in income from this activity shown for the 1995 taxation year is attributable to a $2,800 grant received by him from his employer, Carleton University, and is not, as such, attributable to the appellant's own writing activity. Furthermore, his income is restricted by the type of books he is writing.

[31]          In support of her position that the appellant did not incur expenses in respect of a business, counsel relied on a few decisions of this Court, in particular Varma v. M.N.R., 86 DTC 1342. It was therein decided by Judge Rip of this Court that a professor who, in addition to his university duties, travelled each summer to Europe to conduct research for the purpose of writing articles and books did not incur expenses in respect of a business but incurred them rather to enhance his academic credentials and reputation.

[32]          In an alternative argument, counsel for the respondent submitted that if it is decided that there was a reasonable expectation of profit, the allowable expenses should be considerably reduced as most of the expenses claimed were unreasonable within the meaning of section 67 of the Act. Counsel argued that in 1992, the appellant claimed business-use-of-home expenses to increase his loss, which is unacceptable pursuant to subsection 18(12) of the Act, which read as follows in the taxation years at issue:

                (12) Work space in home. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in computing an individual's income from a business for a taxation year,

                (a) no amount shall be deducted in respect of an otherwise deductible amount for any part (in this subsection referred to as the "work space") of a self-contained domestic establishment in which the individual resides, except to the extent that the work space is either

                                (i) the individual's principal place of business, or

                (ii) used exclusively for the purpose of earning income from business and used on a regular and continuous basis for meeting clients, customers or patients of the individual in respect of the business;

                (b) where the conditions set out in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii) are met, the amount for the work space that is deductible in computing the individual's income from the business for a taxation year shall not exceed the individual's income from the business for the year, computed without reference to the amount; and

                (c) any amount not deductible by reason only of paragraph (b) in computing the individual's income from the business for the immediately preceding taxation year shall be deemed to be an amount otherwise deductible that, subject to paragraphs (a) and (b), may be deducted for the year for the work space in respect of the business.

[33]          She also said that it is clear from the evidence that the trip to Johannesburg in South Africa was a family trip and therefore for personal purposes. Finally, the total expenses claimed each year against his income from his writing activity are disproportionate.

Analysis

[34]          I begin by pointing out that I find it strange that the respondent should argue that there was no reasonable expectation of profit for the 1994 taxation year, as it seems, from the allegation found in paragraph 6 of the Amended Reply to the Notice of Appeal that, out of an amount of $8,151 of losses claimed, $6,014 was considered not to be a business loss. It seems to me that if the Minister accepted the deductibility of part of the losses claimed in 1994 (namely $2,137), it is contradictory to argue at the same time that the appellant did not operate a business because he did not have a reasonable expectation of profit. I should point out that this question was not raised at trial by either party, and no further explanation was provided by the respondent.

[35]          Furthermore, it is recognized in IT-504R2, which theoretically sets out the CCRA's position regarding certain provisions in income tax law, that a longer period of time may be required for a writer to establish that a reasonable expectation of profit exists.

[36]          In the present case, the appellant has claimed losses since 1982 when the newspaper Le Droit stopped paying his expenses. Those losses have varied from $2,000 to $19,000. In the years at issue, the expenses claimed represent two to six times the revenue earned from the activity. In view of these figures, it is hardly surprising that the Minister concluded that with so great a discrepancy between revenue and expenses, there was no reasonable expectation of profit from the appellant's writing activities and therefore there was no business.

[37]          I agree with the respondent that no business with the sort of revenue that the appellant had and the amount of expenses that he was claiming could reasonably expect to earn a profit unless that revenue increased significantly or expenses decreased.

[38]          However, in the present case, I prefer the approach taken by Judge Bowman of this Court in Cipollone v. Canada, [1995] 1 C.T.C. 2598. At page 2600, Judge Bowman wrote as follows:

. . . The reason her losses were as great as they were was not because the business had no reasonable expectation of profit or because she was not expending money for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business. I find as a fact that she was spending money in order to earn a profit and that her expectation of earning a profit was reasonable, if she had chosen to claim reasonable expenses. The problem lies not in the absence of a reasonable expectation of profit – businesses of this sort can be quite lucrative – but rather in the attempt to deduct unreasonable expenses.

[39]          In the present case, I do not think that one can say that the appellant did not have a business or that he did not have a reasonable expectation of profit. Indeed, the evidence revealed that the appellant was a freelance writer for the newspaper Le Droit and did freelance work for CBC Radio from which activities he received steady income over the years. He had to incur expenses in order to earn income from his freelance business. The appellant also writes books. As I pointed out in Court, it is quite unusual for a writer to predict the success of his or her book a long time in advance. One can do research and write books for years before being fully recognized. (For example, the French poet Charles Baudelaire took 15 years to write the very well-known collection of poetry Les fleurs du mal.) The same can be said for a musician or a painter, who may be recognized only after his or her death. (Van Gogh comes to mind, for example.) On the other hand, it is possible to write a book at the right time and to have that book find immediate favour with the public and be at the top of book sales. (I gave the example of Ms. J.K. Rowling and her now very famous Harry Potter books.) This is the reason, I think, why the CCRA adopted its interpretation bulletin on artists and writers.

[40]          However, I accept the respondent's argument that the expenses here are unreasonable within the meaning of section 67, which reads as follows:

SECTION 67: General limitation re expenses.

                In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of an outlay or expense in respect of which any amount is otherwise deductible under this Act, except to the extent that the outlay or expense was reasonable in the circumstances.

[41]          It is obvious that the expenses are disproportionate to the income earned from the writing activity. Some expenses can be struck out at the outset. The dry cleaning expense was admitted by the appellant as being personal, according to Ms. Beaudoin's testimony. The meal expenses have been disallowed because they represent meals taken by the appellant with his wife and family. I agree with the respondent that those meal expenses were not incurred for the purpose of earning income. At least, the contrary has not been demonstrated by the appellant.

[42]          With respect to the travel expenses, it is clear from the evidence that the trip to Johannesburg does not represent a business expense. With respect to the other travel expenses, the amount claimed is certainly excessive. In the Amended Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the respondent proposes to reduce such expenses to half the amount of those incurred for the trips made in Canada only. The respondent would be ready to accept $1,838.55 for 1991, $1,469.72 for 1992, $737.48 for 1993 and $1,952.75 for 1994. This corresponds to 36 per cent of gross income from the activity in 1991, 40 per cent in 1992, 17 per cent in 1993 and 32 per cent in 1994.

[43]          In 1995 and 1996, after the audit, the appellant showed a small profit from his business. The appellant reduced the amount of his travel expenses to 38 per cent of gross income from the activity in 1995 and to 30 per cent in 1996 (the appellant testified that an amount of $1,569 was claimed as travel expenses in 1996). I therefore consider that the travel expenses allowed by the respondent for the years 1991, 1992 and 1994 are reasonable. As for 1993, the amount allowed could be twice what is proposed by the respondent so that the proportion of travel expenses to gross income would be in the same range as for the other years.

[44]          With respect to the other expenses claimed, Ms. Beaudoin did an audit and accepted some and denied others, as shown in Exhibit A-2. The expenses for books have been accepted as reasonable. Although Ms. Beaudoin testified that the appellant did not keep a logbook recording his business use of a vehicle, according to Exhibit A-2, the vehicle expenses seem to have been accepted as well for the year 1991 (in a proportion of 40 per cent for business use) and for the years 1992 and 1993 (in a proportion of 60 per cent). There was no document filed in relation to 1994, but the expense claimed is in proportion with the vehicle expenses claimed in previous years. I will therefore accept the vehicle expenses as claimed. The typewriter expense has been disallowed as being a capital expense, which has not been challenged by the appellant.

[45]          The bank charges have been disallowed and this was not challenged by the appellant. The telephone expense in 1993 was reduced to $915 from $953 on the basis of the invoices; this has not been challenged by the appellant. There does not seem to be any change for the 1992 and 1994 taxation years, as the amounts claimed correspond to the invoices provided. However, in 1992 the appellant claimed an amount of $2,751 as a telephone expense, that is, 50 per cent of total telephone expenses, which seems to me to be exaggerated in comparison with the other years. Ms. Beaudoin raised the point that the 1992 telephone expense was not reasonable. I would reduce that expense to $1,000 so as to put it in the same range as the telephone expense for the other years, in which the appellant claimed approximately 20 per cent of total telephone expenses as being for business purposes. Furthermore, although the appellant entered that expense as a business-use-of-home expense, the telephone item is considered as an office expense and does not relate to work space in the home. That expense is therefore not subject to the conditions and restrictions of subsection 18(12) of the Act (see Interpretation Bulletin IT-514 dated February 3, 1989).

[46]          The only expenses which are not analyzed in Exhibit A-2 are the professional fees and the capital cost allowance ("CCA"). The professional fees are small amounts and should not, if incurred for the appellant's writing business, cause any problem and should be considered deductible expenses.

[47]          With respect to CCA, the amounts are more significant. The appellant testified that the CCA was related to the use of his home. In such a case, the restriction in subsection 18(12) applies and the amount deducted cannot be used to increase a loss in any taxation year.

[48]          In summary, assuming that they were incurred for the business, the book and vehicle expenses and the professional fees shall be allowed as claimed. The deductible travel expenses shall be revised downward to $1,838.55 for 1991, to $1,469.72 for 1992, to $1,474 for 1993 and to $1,952.75 for 1994. The deductible telephone expenses shall be revised downward to $1,000 for 1992, $915 for 1993 and $986 for 1994. The meals, dry cleaning and bank charges are not business expenses and cannot be deducted against the appellant's income. The typewriter is a capital expenditure which is not deductible as a current expense. The CCA claimed is a business-use-of-home expense and, if reasonable and proportionate to the business use of the work space in the home, it may be deducted but the amount so deducted shall not exceed the appellant's income from the business for the taxation year determined prior to deducting the expenses related to the work space. In other words, the CCA deduction cannot create or increase a loss for income tax purposes.

[49]          In conclusion, the appeals are allowed and the assessments referred back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment on the basis that the expenses claimed by the appellant were unreasonable and are to be readjusted in accordance with the present Reasons for Judgment. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 16th day of March 2001.

"Lucie Lamarre"

J.T.C.C.

SCHEDULE A

INCOME, EXPENSES & LOSSES OF THE ACTIVITY

1991 – 1994 TAXATION YEARS

                                                                1991      1992      1993      1994

INCOME                                                 $ 5,013.00                $ 3,600.00                $ 4,210.00                $ 5,934.00

EXPENSES

Books                                                         952.00 1,300.00                 1,690.00                 1,334.00

Meals                                                      1,619.00 1,417.00                    735.00    735.00

Vehicle                                    1,492.00 1,648.00                 1,915.00                 1,116.00

Typewriter                                                 819.00     -                -                -

Professional fees                       59.00       300.00     -               150.00

Dry Cleaning                              -               240.00     -                -

Telephone                                                  -            2,751.00                    953.00    986.00

Bank Charges                            -                90.00        -                 -

Travel                                      8,374.00 12,556.00                12,067.00                7,809.00

CCA                                                        1,256.00 2,300.00                 1,990.00                 1,955.00

Total expenses                      14,571.00                22,602.00                19,350.00                14,085.00

Net loss                                  $ 9,558.00                $19,002.00               $15,140.00               $ 8,151.00

SCHEDULE B

ANALYSIS OF LOSSES OF THE ACTIVITY

1982 – 1998 TAXATION YEARS

AMENDED 00-02-15

                                GROSS

YEAR      INCOME                                NET LOSS                             NET INCOME                      

1982                            7,835.00                                   3,796.00                               

1983                            3,448.00                                   4,916.00

1984                            9,239.00                                   6,388.00

1985                            7,140.00                                10,425.00

1986                            6,045.00                                12,942.00

1987                            9,752.00                                   2,291.00

1988                            7,400.00                                   7,569.00

1989                            4,035.00                                11,989.00

1990                            3,870.00                                10,514.00

1991                            5,013.00                                   9,558.00

1992                            3,600.00                                19,002.00

1993                            4,210.00                                15,140.00

1994                            5,934.00                                   8,151.00

1995                            8,647.00                                                                                1,750.00

1996                            5,452.00                                                                                    598.00

1997                            5,465.00                                     0.00                          0.00

1998                            4,672.00                                2,890.00

Totals                      $101,757.00             $125,571.00             $ 2,348.00