St-Onge,
TCJ
[ORALLY]:—The
appeal
of
Mr
Orest
Halkowich
was
heard
on
May
7,
1984,
at
the
City
of
Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan,
and
it
has
to
do
with
farming
expenses
claimed
by
the
appellant
in
his
1977
and
1978
taxation
years.
The
respondent
has
reassessed
the
appellant
as
set
out
in
paragraph
3
of
the
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal
which
reads
as
follows:
3.
By
Notice
of
Reassessment
dated
March
27,
1981
the
Respondent,
inter
alia,
reassessed
the
Appellant’s
income
as
follows:
|
1977
|
Farming
Expenses
|
|
|
Claimed
|
Vouchered
|
Allowable
|
Adjustment
|
|
a)
Interest
|
6,500.00
|
2,226.20
|
2,226.20
|
4,273.80
|
|
b)
Farm
Insur.
|
838.79
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
838.79
|
|
1978
|
Farming
Expenses
|
|
|
Claimed
|
Vouchered
|
Allowable
|
Adjustment
|
|
a)
Interest
|
5,820.00
|
4,159.60
|
4,159.60
|
1,660.40
|
|
b)
Farm
Insur.
|
370.72
|
173.00
|
173.00
|
197.72
|
|
c)
Rent
|
1,517.84
|
1,250.25
|
1,250.25
|
267.59
|
|
d)
Farm
Start
|
|
|
loan
|
5,700.00
|
5,700.00
|
Nil
|
5,700.00
|
At
the
beginning
of
the
hearing,
counsel
for
the
appellant
abandoned
what
is
alleged
in
his
notice
of
appeal
at
paragraph
1,
subparagraphs
(a),
(b)
and
(c)
and
also
what
is
alleged
at
paragraph
2
which
read
as
follows:
1.
That
the
Minister
erred
in
disallowing
the
following
items,
which
were
expended
in
the
earning
of
the
taxpayer’s
income
for
1978.
(a)
Interest
in
the
sum
of
$1,660.40;
(b)
Farm
Insurance
in
the
sum
of
$197.72;
(c)
Rental
in
the
sum
of
$267.59;
2.
That
the
Minister
erred
in
disallowing
the
following
items,
which
were
expended
in
the
earning
of
the
taxpayer’s
income
for
1977.
(a)
That
the
Minister
erred
in
disallowing
the
interest
in
the
sum
of
$4,273,80
which
was
expended
in
the
earning
of
Income
(b)
That
the
Minister
further
erred
in
disallowing
the
Insurances
expended
on
the
farm
in
the
sum
of
$838.79.
As
to
the
other
item
mentioned
in
the
appellant’s
notice
of
appeal
at
paragraph
1,
subparagraphs
(d)
and
(e),
the
Court
is
not
satisfied
with
the
evidence
adduced
and
prefers
to
rely
on
the
Exhibit
filed
by
the
respondent
as
Exhibit
R-1.
This
Exhibit
cannot
be
reproduced
because
it
has
already
been
sent
back
to
the
respondent
by
the
Registrar.
According
to
this
Exhibit,
all
the
payments
were
reimbursements
of
a
loan
and
there
was
no
reimbursement
for
the
grant.
The
said
grant
was
reported
as
income
in
1976,
as
it
should
have
been
done
and
there
is
no
evidence
adduced
to
show
that
the
payments
were
for
something
else
than
a
reimbursement
of
a
loan.
The
amount
of
$20,163.38
is
reduced
by
an
amount
of
$554.17.
Consequently,
for
these
reasons
the
appeal
is
allowed
in
part
and
the
matter
referred
back
to
the
Minister
for
reassessment
accordingly.
Appeal
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content