Mahoney,
J.A.
(Hugessen
and
MacGuigan,
JJ.A.
concurring):—This
appeal
from
a
reported
decision
of
the
Trial
Division,
[1988]
2
C.T.C.
279;
88
D.T.C.
6483,
was
argued
consecutively
with
the
appeal
of
Denis
Verrier,
Court
file
A-1040-88,
as
the
cases
had
been
tried
consecutively
in
the
Trial
Division.
The
learned
trial
judge
applied
his
conclusions
in
Verrier
to
the
present
case
and
dismissed
the
appellant's
appeal
against
his
1979
and
1980
income
tax
assessments,
which
had
disallowed
deduction
of
expenses
claimed
under
paragraph
8(1
)(f)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
This
appellant
was
also
a
Winnipeg
automobile
salesman.
The
only
significant
factual
difference
is
that
the
present
appellant
was
obliged
to
be
at
his
dealership's
showroom
six
hours
per
day
weekdays
and
on
alternate
Saturdays.
That
does
not,
in
my
opinion,
lead
to
a
different
conclusion
as
whether
he
was
“ordinarily
required
to
carry
on
the
duties
of
his
employment
away
from
his
employer's
place
of
business.”
The
evidence
is
clear
that
he
had
to
be
if
he
was
to
sell
enough
vehicles
to
earn
a
living
and
keep
his
job.
I
would
allow
the
appeal
with
costs
here
and
in
the
Trial
Division
and,
pursuant
to
subparagraphs
52(b)(i)
of
the
Federal
Court
Act
and
177(b)(iv)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
I
would
refer
the
appellant's
1979
and
1980
returns
back
to
the
Minister
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment
on
the
basis
that
he
was
entitled
to
claim
a
deduction
of
expenses
under
paragraph
8(1)(f).
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content