Taylor,
T.C.J.:—This
is
an
appeal
against
an
income
tax
assessment,
for
the
year
1980,
heard
on
April
2,
1987,
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
in
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
disallowed
a
deduction
in
the
amount
of
$6,000
claimed
for
capital
cost
allowance
with
regard
to
a
film
called
"Dilemma".
I
would
refer
to
the
recent
judgment
of
this
Court
in
Figueroa
v.
M.N.R.,
[1987]
2
C.T.C.
2128;
87
D.T.C.
387.
The
issue
is
essentially
the
same
here,
except
that
the
"down
payment"
for
Mr.
Cordoba
is
$1,250,
and
the
balance
of
$4,750
was
retired
(according
to
the
appellant)
by
payment
of
$250
in
cash
and
the
balance
$4,500
as
a
"contra-account"
for
services
rendered
by
Mr.
Cordoba
to
Jim
Ross.*
In
support
of
his
case,
the
appellant
introduced
the
following
documents:
Exhibit
A-1
—
Statement
of
certain
withdrawals
from
the
Toronto-Dominion
Bank,
Toronto,
Ontario
from
1978
to
1982.
Exhibit
A-2
—
Pencilled
figures
allegedly
regarding
payments
in
Exhibit
A-1
(above).
Exhibit
A-3
—
Cash
receipt
for
$200.00.
Exhibit
A-4
—
Cordoba
and
Associates
—
Accounting
Journal
entries
allegedly
reflecting
the
"contra-account"
of
$45,000.00.
Exhibit
A-5
—
Affidavit
of
Mrs.
Pedro
Cordoba.
Exhibit
A-6
—
Letter
from
appellant
to
Revenue
Canada,
dated
June
12,
1984.
Exhibit
A-7
—
Purchase
Agreement,
dated
December
21,
1978
(re
film
"Dilemma").
Exhibit
A-8
—
Promissory
Note
for
$4,750.00,
dated
December
21,
1978.
Exhibit
A-9
—
Certificate
of
film
—
“Dilemma”,
dated
October
4,
1978
from
Secretary
of
State.
In
cross-examination,
the
Minister
introduced
a
copy
of
the
alleged
"account
for
services’,
for
$4,500
from
the
appellant
to
Norcom
Films.
—
Exhibit
R-1.
The
essence
of
the
appellant's
testimony
was
that
he
had
contributed
$200
to
Jim
Ross
on
May
4,
1978,
(Exhibit
A-3)
and
paid
the
balance
of
the
$1,050
(total
$1,250
amount)
over
two
or
three
years
(Exhibits
A-1
and
A-2).
He
produced
neither
receipts,
nor
cancelled
cheques,
nor
any
other
document
to
indicate
that
balance
of
$1,050
had
been
paid.
The
bank
letter
and
the
pencilled
notes
do
not
fill
that
requirement.
With
regard
to
the
alleged
$4,750
promissory
note
there
is
no
evidence
that
Mr.
Cordoba
actually
paid
the
$250
amount
to
reduce
that
balance
to
the
$4,500
amount,
and
certainly
the
documents
he
introduced
do
not
reflect
any
"contra-account"
which
would
be
sufficient
to
be
considered
payment
of
that
debt.
In
addition,
Mr.
Cordoba's
responses
to
questions
from
both
counsel
for
the
Minister
and
the
Court
with
regard
to
the
other
Exhibits
(supra)
were
so
conflicting
as
to
be
virtually
in
direct
contrast
to
the
information
on
some
of
the
documents
which
he
wished
the
Court
to
accept
as
"proof"
of
the
payments
he
claimed.
Mr.
Cordoba
was
a
very
unconvincing
witness.
In
the
end
analysis
the
only
amount
the
Court
agrees
was
even
possibly
paid
in
connection
with
the
film
"Dilemma"
was
the
$200
amount
from
Exhibit
A-3
(supra)
on
the
basis
of
that
cash
receipt
for
$200.
I
have
no
reason
to
reject
its
date
of
March
4,
1978,
although
no
other
proof
was
offered.
The
appeal
is
allowed
in
part,
in
order
that
the
appellant
may
claim
an
amount
of
$200
as
capital
cost
allowance
with
regard
to
the
film
"Dilemma".
In
all
other
respects
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
No
costs
are
to
be
awarded.
Appeal
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content