Taylor
J.T.C.C.:—This
is
an
appeal
heard
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
May
19,
1994
under
the
informal
procedure
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada.
There
were
two
issues,
disallowance
by
the
respondent
of
an
amount
of
$2,745.90
CCA
on
the
appellant’s
automobile
and
the
disallowance
of
an
amount
of
$1,926.10
of
"expenses
claimed
other
than
automobile
expenses",
both
amounts
for
the
taxation
year
1991.
The
appellant
was
an
agent
for
a
food
company
earning
her
income
from
commission
on
sales
she
made
to
large
restaurants
and
food
producers.
In
so
doing
she
used
her
automobile
extensively
and
did
considerable
entertainment
of
clients.
Apparently,
already
she
had
been
allowed
as
a
deduction
an
amount
of
$10,490.96
with
respect
to
automobile
expenses
by
the
respondent.
She
had
never
been
requested
by
Revenue
Canada
to
provide
receipts
for
her
expenses
claimed,
so,
in
my
view,
that
aspect,
any
proof
of
expenses,
was
not
in
issue.
She
was
required
by
her
employer
to
file
weekly,
in
some
cases
daily,
records
of
her
work
routine,
visits,
etc.,
during
the
approximately
ten
years
she
had
worked
there.
Her
employer
specifically
pointed
out
that
expenses
such
as
those
claimed,
including
the
disallowed
amounts,
would
not
be
reimbursed
and
she
was
to
claim
them
herself
in
her
own
tax
return.
There
had
not
been
a
question
raised
by
Revenue
Canada
in
previous
years.
At
the
request
of
Revenue
Canada,
the
employer
had
completed
form
T2200
indicating
that
she,
"was
not
required
to
provide
supplies
that
were
consumed
directly
in
the
performance
of
the
duties
of
her
employment".
I
am
not
certain
that
the
term
’’provide
supplies",
as
used
there,
if
closely
examined,
would
suit
the
circumstances
of
this
case
when
the
appellant
really
paid
expenses
for
entertainment,
and
indeed
it
might
be
possible
to
allow
that
portion
of
this
appeal
on
those
grounds
alone,
but
I
do
not
need
to
decide
that
point.
I
am
satisfied
that
the
appellant’s
entertainment
expenses
were
a
legitimate
and
required
part
of
the
duties
of
her
position.
I
cannot
feature
how
she
could
have
fulfilled
her
function
without
encountering
those
expenses,
and
I
am
satisfied
that
her
employer
expected
her
so
to
do,
despite
the
apparent
rejection
of
that
view
on
form
T2200.
The
employer
could
not
be
called
by
the
appellant
as
support
or
to
be
cross-examined
because
the
company
went
bankrupt
at
the
end
of
October
1991
and
no
records
or
officers
were
available
now.
That
brings
up
the
second
part
of
the
appeal,
the
disallowance
of
the
automobile
capital
cost
allowance.
I
am
quite
satisfied
that
the
appellant
used
her
automobile
regularly
in
the
performance
of
her
duties
and
the
respondent
did
not
challenge
that.
The
appellant
asserted,
however,
that
since
the
taxpayer
would
be
allowed
such
CCA
deduction
if
a
car
were
purchased
during
the
year
and
used
for
only
several
months
until
the
end
of
the
year,
she
should
be
accorded
an
allowance
on
a
pro
rata
basis
up
until
the
end
of
October.
The
problem
with
that
contention
is
that
the
asset,
in
this
case
an
automobile,
must
be
owned
and
used
in
the
production
of
income
at
the
end
of
the
fiscal
year,
here
that
is
December
31,
1991.
Revenue
Canada
does
not
allow
only
a
pro
rata
CCA
in
the
year
of
purchase,
it
does
allow
CCA
for
entire
fiscal
period.
So
there
is
no
basis
for
allowing
a
pro
rata
CCA
in
this
year,
1991,
when
the
automobile
was
not
used
for
income
production
for
the
last
two
months
of
the
year.
That
is
not
only
the
law,
it
also
appears
to
me
to
be
eminently
and
logical
and
reasonable,
as
well
as
administratively
simple.
The
appeal
will
be
allowed
in
part
in
order
that
the
amount
of
$1,926.20
be
allowed
as
additional
expenses.
In
all
other
respects
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content