Appeal heard on April 8, 2014 at Toronto, Ontario.
Before: The Honourable Justice Patrick Boyle
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Alisa Apostle
|
JUDGMENT
In accordance with the reasons delivered orally at the hearing (a
copy of which is attached hereto), the appeal from the assessments made under
Part IX of the Excise Tax Act for the periods July 1, 2010 to September
30, 2010, October 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, April 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011
October 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011, by Notices of Assessment dated March 21,
2011, May 9, 2011, September 2, 2011 and February 22, 2012, respectively, is
dismissed on the basis that the Minister of National Revenue correctly assessed
the Appellant to disallow input tax credits in the amount of $2,614.36 for the
periods.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellant shall pay costs to the Respondent in the
amount of $1,000 within 45 days from the date of this Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 13th day of
May 2014.
“Patrick
Boyle”
Citation:
2014 TCC 145
Date: 20140513
Docket: 2013-2836(GST)I
BETWEEN:
BERNARD
YEVZEROFF
Appellant,
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Appeal
heard and decision rendered orally from the Bench
on
April 8, 2014 at Toronto, Ontario.)
Boyle J.
[1]
Mr. Yevzeroff's appeal today is in respect of
input tax credits on GST for periods in 2010 and 2011, and includes some
previously unclaimed ITCs from 2008 and 2009.
[2]
He had a prior appeal in front of Justice
Lamarre, decided last year, dealing with the first quarter of 2011. The periods
before me today are on either side of the period before Justice Lamarre.
[3]
The appeal today includes a number of Canada
Post inputs, and a number of Beaches Paralegal inputs, that were already before
Justice Lamarre in the 2013 decision.
[4]
Justice Lamarre dismissed the appeal, and was
not satisfied that the taxpayer's activities were sufficiently commercial. She
also thought his expenses were not reasonable, and were excessive relative to
his activities.
[5]
In his appeal in front of Justice Lamarre, Mr.
Yevzeroff also had an ITC claim for a software and support expense of approximately
$50,000, that claim is not before me. However, he has, before me, made a
comparable amount claim for ITC on vehicle expenses, of approximately the same
amount as the Tarox International software and support ITC before Justice Lamarre.
These automobile expenses were not before Justice Lamarre.
[6]
Unfortunately for Mr. Yevzeroff, I am dismissing
his appeal. My reasons are not dissimilar to Justice Lamarre's. The evidence
before me today still does not satisfy the Court that his tax representation activities
is a commercial activity, as defined for ITC purposes.
[7]
His ITC claims, as made, are clearly excessive,
an unreasonable amount relative to his very modest revenues from his tax
representation activity.
[8]
Further, there are credibility concerns with the
taxpayer and his documents. He denied he was the Ben Yevzeroff in a fax header,
or that he had a fax machine, until it was pointed out to him that this same
header appears on the Notice of Appeal he filed. Several documents misspell Yonge Street in the same manner as he did in his Notice of Appeal.
[9]
Further, it would be entirely inappropriate for
me to allow the same Beaches Paralegal claim, and the same Canada Post claims,
to be relitigated, much less to be decided in the taxpayer's favour. Mr.
Yevzeroff's attempt to do so is an abuse of the process of this Court.
[10]
Further, the vehicle expense claim is entirely
based upon a CRA published ITC allowance for those receiving tax free vehicle
allowances. Mr. Yevzeroff is not such a person; he did not receive such an
allowance. He used his own vehicle in his activity, he kept logs to the very
kilometre, but he did not tell the Court what his vehicle expenses were.
[11]
Further, his ITC claim for a vehicle expense
suggests he drove almost 40,000 kilometres in the two years for tax
representation activities, and his input vehicle expenses were many times the
approximately $2,500 of gross revenue generated by his tax representation
activities in those periods.
[12]
To the extent invoices for the supplies weren’t
before the Court, the taxpayer has not satisfied the prescribed information
requirements for ITC claims in respect of those supplies.
[13]
For all of these reasons, Mr. Yevzeroff's appeal
is dismissed. This is an informal appeal, however the Court is entitled to
regulate its processes, including curtailing abuses of process, and awarding
costs against those who seek to abuse our processes.
[14]
In the circumstances, I am awarding costs
against Mr. Yevzeroff of $1,000 payable to the Respondent within 45 days.
[15]
Further, Mr. Yevzeroff, please be aware that if
you try to relitigate this yet again, this Court has the power to bar you from
filing anything further in this Court without leave of the Court.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 13th day of May 2014.
“Patrick Boyle”
Email this Content