Date: 20010706
Docket: 2000-3506-IT-I, 2001-1922-IT-I
BETWEEN:
JAMES G. TODD,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Beaubier, J.T.C.C.
[1]
These appeals pursuant to the Informal Procedure were heard
together on common evidence at Calgary, Alberta on June 18, 2001.
Mr. Todd and Peter Streukens testified. Mr. Todd's
testimony was supported by Mr. Streuken's testimony and by
his daily diaries, which are not exhibits, for the years in
question. After the fact and based on his place entries and
recollection from the diaries, Mr. Todd entered various mileages
into his diaries which are accepted by the Court. He testified to
the truth of these entries. He is believed. As a result the
diaries are accepted as a vehicle log book.
[2]
The Appeals are from assessments for 1996, 1997 and 1998. In
Court Mr. Todd disputed the following assessments:
(1)
In 1996
|
Automobile Standby
Charge
|
$7,359.56
|
|
Parking
|
$877.50
|
(2)
1997 and 1998 (Vehicle alleged to be leased)
|
1997
|
|
|
Automobile Standby
Charge
|
$6,871.00
|
|
1998
|
|
|
Automobile Standby
Charge
|
$9,734.00
|
[3]
In the course of the three years, two Yukon GMC vehicles were
used by the Appellant who founded, expanded and operated Ice
Drilling Systems Inc., a drilling service corporation with
business operating headquarters in Red Deer, Alberta and
financial operations in Calgary. He was its President and Chief
Operating Officer. On each business day of the three years he
usually worked in Red Deer in the morning and Calgary in the
afternoon and drove the 160 kilometers each way between the
two cities, using his cell phone for business purposes while
driving.
[4]
The evidence satisfied the Court that his business mileage
claimed was correct. He also proved that:
(1)
The 1998 lease cost was $8,544.00 and not $8,676.96 as alleged by
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
(2)
In 1997 the Yukon was leased.
(3)
All of the parking charges assessed against the Appellant were in
fact for business parking and were of no personal benefit to the
Appellant.
[5]
As a result, the Court accepts the Appellant's statements of
personal and business mileage contained in his calculations
attached to his Notice of Appeal filed in Appeal 2000-3506(IT)I.
The net result is:
|
(1)
|
1996 Kilometers
|
|
|
|
Total
|
72,000
|
|
|
Business
|
63,680
|
|
|
Personal
|
8,320
|
|
(2)
|
1997 Kilometers
|
|
|
|
Total
|
59,300
|
|
|
Business
|
55,890
|
|
|
Personal
|
3,410
|
|
(3)
|
1998 Kilometers
|
|
|
|
Total
|
50,000
|
|
|
Business
|
46,200
|
|
|
Personal
|
3,800
|
[6]
On that basis, Crown Counsel submitted the following calculations
respecting the personal benefit to the Appellant, which are
accepted respecting each year:
Reduced Standby Charge
A x [2% x (C x D) + 2/3 x (E - F)]
B
owned
leased
1000 x
365
(8676.96 - 0)
30
A lesser of
a)
to km driven except 12
b)
12000
12
c)
e req'd to use ® duties ✔
d)
all or subst'ly all ® duties ✔
✔
c)
1996
✘
d)
N.B. 8320
x [2/3 x 8676.96]
12000
.69 x
5784.64
=
3991.40
3991.40 x
7%
=
279.40
Operating 8320 x
13 ¢
=
1081.60
5352.40 37359.56
1997
✔
c)
✔
b)*
3410 x [2/3 x
8676.96]
12000
.284 x 5784.64
=
1643.80
1643.80 x
7%
=
115.07
Operating 3410 x
14 ¢
=
477.40
2236.27 ✔ 6871.00
(* should read d) and not b))
1998
✔
c)
✔
d)
3800 x [2/3 x
8676.96]
12000
8544
.3167 x diff vehicle?
diff lease amt?
5784.64
=
1831.99
1831.99 x
7%
128.24
Operating 3800 x
14 ¢
=
532.00
2492.23 ✔
9734.40*
(* should read 10,080.90 and not 9734.40)
[7]
The Appellant then argued that the word "standby"
refers not just to mileage but to time as well. Therefore the
time that the vehicle sat parked in a company parking area, or at
an airport must also be considered. The converse of this is the
overnight time that the vehicle sat at the Appellant's home
after work. However, the formula contained in the Income Tax
Act speaks for itself. It is not based on time. For this
reason, and based on the evidence, the Court finds that
Respondent's Counsel's calculations are correct and the
appeals respecting vehicle benefits are allowed accordingly. The
appeal of the assessment for parking fees in 1996 is allowed.
These are all for business parking in Calgary. The Appellant did
not pursue his appeal respecting insurance premiums and that
appeal is dismissed.
[8]
The Appellant was successful in more than 50% of his appeal and
he is awarded the sum of $250.00 for out-of-pocket disbursements
in proceeding with his appeal and coming from Red Deer to Calgary
to prosecute it.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 6th day of July,
2001.
"D.W. Beaubier"
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
2000-3506(IT)I
2001-1922(IT)I
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
James G. Todd v. Her Majesty the
Queen
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Calgary, Alberta
DATE OF
HEARING:
June 18, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Judge D.W. Beaubier
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
July 6, 2001
APPEARANCES:
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Gwen Mah
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the
Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
2000-3506(IT)I
BETWEEN:
JAMES G. TODD,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeals heard on common evidence with the
appeals of James G. Todd
(2001-1922(IT)I) on June 18, 2001 at Calgary,
Alberta
by the Honourable Judge D.W. Beaubier
Appearances
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Gwen Mah
JUDGMENT
The
appeals from the reassessments made under the Income Tax
Act for the 1996, 1997 and 1998 taxation years are allowed
and the reassessments are referred back to the Minister of
National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in
accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
The
Appellant is awarded one set of costs in the sum of $250.00 on
account of out-of-pocket disbursements incurred in the
prosecuting of his appeals.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 6th day of July,
2001.
J.T.C.C.
2001-1922(IT)I
BETWEEN:
JAMES G. TODD,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeals heard on common evidence with the
appeals of James G. Todd
(2000-3506(IT)I) on June 18, 2001 at Calgary,
Alberta
by the Honourable Judge D.W. Beaubier
Appearances
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Gwen Mah
JUDGMENT
The
appeals from the reassessments made under the Income Tax
Act for the 1997 and 1998 taxation years are allowed and the
reassessments are referred back to the Minister of National
Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with
the attached Reasons for Judgment.
The
Appellant is awarded one set of costs in the sum of $250.00 on
account of out-of-pocket disbursements incurred in the
prosecuting of his appeals.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 6th day of July,
2001.
J.T.C.C.
Email this Content