Sarchuk,
T.C.J.:—The
appellant
appeals
from
reassessments
to
income
tax
for
his
1979
and
1980
taxation
years.
Robert
M.
McKee
(McKee)
is
an
automobile
salesman
employed
by
Carter
Motors
Limited,
an
automobile
dealer
in
the
City
of
Winnipeg,
and
at
all
relevant
times
was
remunerated
by
commissions
paid
in
reference
to
the
volume
of
the
sales
of
automobiles
made
by
him.
In
filing
his
returns
of
income
he
claimed
as
a
deduction
in
computing
his
income,
amounts
expended
by
him
for
the
purpose
of
earning
the
commissions.
In
reassessing
McKee
for
the
taxation
years
in
question
the
respondent
disallowed
the
deduction
of
all
of
the
expenses
so
claimed
on
the
basis
that
he
had
not
brought
himself
within
the
provisions
of
paragraph
8(1)(f)
and
that
as
a
result
the
deduction
of
the
amounts
claimed
was
prohibited
by
the
provisions
of
subsection
8(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
This
appeal
was
argued
together
with
the
appeal
of
one
Denis
Verrier
(83-1426).
Although
the
facts
in
the
McKee
and
Verrier
appeals
are
not
identical
it
was
agreed
by
all
parties
that
the
arguments
advanced
would,
to
the
extent
possible,
apply
to
both
appeals.
The
appellant
McKee
submitted
that
in
order
to
properly
carry
out
his
duties
and
obligations
as
an
automobile
salesman
he
was
ordinarily
required
to
carry
on
the
duties
of
his
employment
away
from
his
employer's
place
of
business.
With
respect
to
the
facts
underlying
McKee's
position
it
will
suffice
to
say
that
his
claim
to
deductions
from
his
employment
income
was
premised
on
the
provision
of
voluntary
or
discretionary
services
in
most
instances
identical
in
nature
to
those
provided
by
Mr.
Verrier.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
in
contrast
to
Mr.
Verrier,
McKee
was
specifically
required
to
be
at
his
employer's
premises
and
to
take
a
regular
floor
duty
shift.
All
other
factual
distinctions
which
exist
in
McKee's
appeal
do
not
operate
in
his
favour.
Accordingly,
I
would
dismiss
this
appeal
for
the
reasons
given
in
Denis
Verrier
v.
M.N.R.,
(83-1426)
[1986]
1
C.T.C.
2018
in
so
far
as
they
are
applicable
to
the
issues
raised
in
this
appeal.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content