Taylor
J.T.C.C.
(orally):-As
is
my
usual
practice
when
I
read
these
into
the
record,
copies
of
what
I
have
to
say
here
will
be
sent
to
both
parties.
This
is
an
appeal
heard
under
the
informal
procedure
on
May
17,
1994
in
the
City
of
Toronto
against
an
income
tax
assessment
for
the
year
1990
in
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
treated
an
amount
of
$7,000
as
employment
income.
On
March
9,
1992
the
appellant
formally
requested
the
Minister
to
change
the
classification
of
the
amount
at
issue
from
’’Employment
Income"
to
a
payment
of
a
loan
from
"Hopnot
Construction
Incorporation,"
a
corporation
in
which
the
appellant
was
the
sole
shareholder
and
director.
According
to
the
evidence
Hopnot
started
operations
early
in
1990
and
the
appellant
took
out
the
$7,000
at
issue
as
salary,
income
tax
and
CPP
were
deducted
and
a
T4
slip
prepared
at
year
end.
The
appellant
filed
his
1990
tax
return
in
April
1991,
but
later
realized
he
could
have
withdrawn
the
same
amount
as
a
repayment
of
his
advances
to
the
company
and
so
made
his
request
to
Revenue
Canada,
which
request
was
refused
and
this
appeal
ensued.
I
accept
that
it
was
open
to
Revenue
Canada
to
accept
the
request
for
amendment
and
to
reassess
the
appellant.
Not
having
done
so,
the
issue
simply
becomes,
at
the
Court
level,
whether
the
facts
as
presented
in
court
and
in
the
documentation
warrant
the
Court
ordering
a
reassessment.
In
my
opinion
the
Court
cannot
do
so
because
the
facts
support
the
assessment
as
it
was
struck
when
the
amount
was
paid
and
when
it
was
received.
It
was
characterized
as
income
to
the
appellant,
salary
or
wages.
The
point
in
time
which
is
critical
is
when
the
amount
was
paid
in
1990.
There
may
have
been
good
reasons
for
the
appellant
in
essence
directing
his
corporation
to
pay
the
amount
and
treat
it
in
that
matter.
He
may
have
only
wished
to
have
some
flexibility
when
it
came
time
to
record
the
financial
transactions
and
prepare
both
personal
and
corporate
returns.
Whatever
the
reason
it
is
the
transactions
themselves,
the
payment
and
the
receipt,
and
the
characterization
attached
to
them
at
that
time,
not
later
on
which
must
be
given
the
determination
of
the
Court.
Clearly
Mr.
Hopkins
could
have
done
things
differently
but
he
did
not.
The
Court
is
not
in
a
position
to
vary
the
income
tax
results
faced
with
these
facts.
It
cannot
be
said
that
the
facts
on
which
the
assessment
was
struck
by
the
Minister
were
wrong.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content