98-373(IT)I
BETWEEN:
LAYTON BEZAN,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeals heard on June 25, 1999 at Regina,
Saskatchewan, by
the Honourable Judge D.W. Beaubier
Appearances
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Tracey Harwood-Jones
JUDGMENT
The
appeals from the reassessments made under the Income Tax
Act for the 1994 and 1995 taxation years are dismissed in
accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Vancouver, Canada this 5th day of July,
1999.
J.T.C.C.
Date: 19990705
Docket: 98-373(IT)I
BETWEEN:
LAYTON BEZAN,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Beaubier, J.T.C.C.
[1] This appeal pursuant to the
Informal Procedure was heard at Regina, Saskatchewan on June 25,
1999. The Appellant was the only witness.
[2] Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Reply to
the Notice of Appeal read:
7. In
reassessing the Appellant for he 1994 taxation year, the Minister
of National Revenue (the "Minister") reduced the
Appellant's claim for farm losses by $24,958.42, from
$27,208.42 to $2,250.00 as follows:
1994
|
|
Reported
|
Adjustments
|
Revised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Income
|
|
|
|
|
Cattle Sales
|
$55,053.06
|
$1,574.23
|
$56,627.29
|
|
GST Refund
|
1,114.32
|
|
1,114.32
|
|
Feeder Calves
|
4,240.00
|
|
4,240.00
|
|
MIA
|
___________
|
53,938.80
|
53,938.80
|
|
Total Income
|
$60,407.38
|
$55,513.03
|
$115,920.41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses
|
$102,700.78
|
$1,402.84
|
$104,103.62
|
|
MIA Included in
Income in Prior Year
|
___________
|
14,316.79
|
14,316.79
|
|
Total Deductions
|
$102,700.78
|
$15,719.63
|
$118,420.41
|
|
Total Farm Loss
|
($42,293.40)
|
$39,793.40
|
($2,500.00)
|
|
Less: Portion of Loss
Allocated to Spouse
|
___________
|
( 250.00)
|
( 250.00)
|
|
Net Farm Loss
|
($42,293.40)
|
$40,043.40
|
($2,250.00)
|
|
Less: Portion of Farm
Loss Carried Forward
|
15,084.98
|
|
|
|
Net Farm Loss
Claimed
|
($27,208.42)*
|
|
|
*Even though the Appellant calculated a farm loss in the
amount of $42,293.40 on his statement of farm income and expenses
for the 1994 taxation year, he only claimed the amount of
$27,208.42, which was the amount of the loss necessary to reduce
his income for the year to nil. He then carried forward the
excess portion of the farm loss that he did not require to
subsequent years.
8. In
reassessing the Appellant for the 1995 taxation year, the
Minister assessed net farm income in the amount of $5,764.00 and
allowed a restricted farm loss carry forward in the amount of
$5,764.00. The net farm income assessed for the year was
determined as follows:
1995
|
|
Reported
|
Adjustments
|
Revised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Income
|
|
|
|
|
Cattle Sales
|
$93,038.26
|
$ 809.36
|
$93,847.62
|
|
Total Income
|
$93,038.25
|
$ 809.36
|
$93,847.62
|
|
Expenses
|
$37,948.76
|
($4,445.25)
|
$33,503.51
|
|
MIA Included in
Income in Prior Year
|
___________
|
53,938.80
|
53,938.80
|
|
Total Deductions
|
$37,948.76
|
$49,493.55
|
$87,442.31
|
|
Total Farm Income
|
$55,089.50
|
$48,684.19
|
$6,405.31
|
|
Less: Portion of Loss
Allocated to Spouse
|
___________
|
( 640.48)
|
( 640.48)
|
|
Net Farm Income
(Loss)
|
$55,089.50
|
$49,324.67
|
$5,764.83
|
|
Add: Farm Loss Carried Forward from Prior Years
|
(86,924.73)*
|
|
|
|
Net Farm Loss
|
($31,835.23)
|
|
|
|
Less: Portion of Farm
Loss Carry forward
|
13,594.43*
|
|
|
|
Net Farm Loss
Claimed
|
($18,240.80)*
|
|
|
*In calculating his farm loss for the year, the Appellant
included in his farm loss calculation his carry forward of
accumulated farm losses from prior years. He then utilized these
farm losses to the extent necessary to reduce his income for the
year to nil and he then carried forward the excess portion of the
losses that he did not require to subsequent years.
[3] With respect to the issues to be
decided, the Court finds:
(a) The Appellant did not
dispute the correctness of the Mandatory Inventory Adjustment
calculation. Nor did he establish that any of the assumptions in
paragraph 9 of the Reply were incorrect. In particular, he did
not refute the calculation or the basis for the calculation in
paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Reply.
(b) Finally, paragraph 111(1)(c) of
the Income Tax Act ("Act") prevents the
Appellant from carrying forward restricted farm losses against
non-farm income.
[4] For these reasons, the appeals are
dismissed.
Signed at Vancouver, Canada this 5th day of July,
1999.
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
98-373(IT)I
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Layton Bezan v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Regina, Saskatchewan
DATE OF
HEARING:
June 25, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable D.W.
Beaubier
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
July 5, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the
Appellant:
Counsel for the Respondent: Tracey
Harwood-Jones
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada