M
J
Bonner:—This
is
an
appeal
from
an
assessment
of
income
tax
for
the
appellant’s
1975
taxation
year.
In
her
return
of
income
for
the
year
the
appellant
sought
to
deduct
the
sum
of
$33,333.34
as
a
business
loss.
The
deduction
was
disallowed
on
assessment.
The
loss
arose,
it
was
said,
from
the
theft
of
$50,000
in
coins
which
were
stolen.
It
may
be
that,
as
a
result
of
a
theft,
the
appellant
became
entitled
to
some
sort
of
relief.
However,
the
appellant
does
not
appear
to
have
given
much
thought
to
the
basis,
either
in
law
or
in
fact,
of
the
claim
advanced
in
this
appeal.
Her
notice
of
appeal
appears
to
have
been
prepared
on
the
basis
of
a
mistaken
view
that
this
Board
is
part
of,
or
in
some
way
connected
with,
the
Department
of
National
Revenue.
Paragraph
3
of
the
notice
of
appeal
reads:
3.
Since
you
have
charged
me
exhorbitant
(sic)
rates
of
income
tax,
not
always
justified,
on
all
profits
I
have
made,
I
feel
I
am
entitled
to
this
large
loss,
as
the
income
tax
you
have
been
charging
me
have
(sic)
kept
me
in
a
state
of
near
poverty.
The
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal
pleaded
that,
in
assessing,
the
respondent
assumed
that
the
appellant
had
no
non-capital
or
capital
losses
to
be
deducted
in
1975.
The
reply
put
the
appellant
to
the
strict
proof
of
her
loss.
Thus,
it
was
clear
that
it
was
encumbent
upon
the
appellant
to
establish,
on
the
balance
of
probabilities,
inter
alia,
the
fact
and
the
quantum
of
the
loss.
The
task
of
discharging
the
onus
on
the
factual
issues
should
have
been
Simple.
The
appellant’s
husband
gave
evidence.
The
only
other
witness
called
was
the
appellant.
She
was
called
by
the
respondent
only
to
identify
her
income
tax
return
for
1975.
Mr
Lenglet
did
not
cross-examine
her.
Mr
Lenglet’s
evidence
was
that
beginning
in
1956
he
and
his
wife
embarked
on
a
programme
of
purchasing
coins.
At
first
they
bought
proof-like
mint
sets.
Later
they
bought
uncirculated
silver
coins.
This
was
regarded
as
a
way
of
buying
silver
at
a
cost
only
slightly
in
excess
of
bullion,
but
with
a
minimum
value
equal
to
the
face
amount
of
the
coins.
Their
buying
decisions
were
based
on
a
judgment
whether
the
number
of
coins
minted
warranted
an
expectation
of
an
increase
in
value.
They
purchased
presentation
sets
as
well.
The
plan
was
to
ultimately
sell
the
coins
to
finance
retirement.
The
coins
thus
purchased
were
stored
in
the
premises
of
Vancouver
Safety
Deposit
Vaults
Ltd.
In
November
of
1975
it
was
discovered
that
the
box
in
which
the
coins
were
stored
had
been
opened
by
thieves
and
the
contents
removed.
There
was
considerable
confusion
in
the
evidence.
The
tenor
of
the
evidence
given
by
Mr
Lenglet
in
chief
clearly
indicated
that
coins
were
purchased
by
both
himself
and
his
wife.
On
cross-examination,
however,
he
asserted
that
the
appellant
was
the
sole
owner
of
them.
It
is
quite
possible
that
some
coins
were
the
sole
property
of
the
appellant
and
that
others
were
the
sole
property
of
Mr
Lenglet,
and
that
the
answer
was
directed
only
to
the
coins
relevant
to
this
appeal.
However,
such
an
analysis
appears
to
be
inconsistent
with
the
appellant’s
return
of
income
which
indicates
that
she
had
a
66
/3%
interest
in
$50,000
of
“merchandise”
stolen.
It
is
also
difficult
to
reconcile
the
evidence
already
mentioned
with
Mr
Lenglet’s
statement
that
‘‘we
were
losers
to
the
extent
of
$38,000”.
No
attempt
was
made
to
give
particulars
of
the
cost
of
the
coins
stolen.
The
figures
referred
to
in
the
evidence
appear
to
have
been
estimates,
not
of
cost,
but
of
value
at
the
time
of
the
theft.
No
list
of
the
contents
of
the
box
was
produced.
It
is
not
clear
whether
there
was
one.
At
one
point
Mr
Lenglet
said,
‘‘we
kept
a
record
of
purchases”.
At
another
point
he
said
the
theft
was
discovered
when
he
attended
to
make
an
inventory.
Obviously,
no
loss
sustained
by
the
appellant’s
husband
can
have
relevance
to
the
computation
of
the
appellant’s
tax
liability.
Because
the
evidence
failed
to
establish
the
quantum
of
the
loss
sustained
by
the
appellant
the
appeal
cannot
succeed.
As
I
see
it,
it
is
incumbent
on
the
litigant
on
an
appeal
from
an
assessment
to
analyse
his
position
in
fact
and
in
law,
and
to
prepare
his
evidence
and
his
argument
for
presentation
at
the
hearing.
Generally
speaking,
it
is
not
the
duty
of
the
Member
of
this
Board
who
presides
at
a
hearing
of
an
appeal
to
assist
either
party
in
proving
his
case.
That
is
not
to
say
that
a
Member
may
not,
quite
properly,
to
avoid
injustice
resulting
from
some
apparent
oversight,
put
questions
to
a
witness
who
has
been
called
by
one
of
the
parties,
even
when
such
questions
relate
to
matters
not
dealt
with
in
prior
examination
and
cross-examination.
However,
any
such
intervention
must
stop
short
of
taking
the
conduct
of
the
case
out
of
the
hands
of
either
side.
During
the
hearing
Mr
Lenglet
made
it
apparent
that
he
was
not
receptive
to
questions
from
the
Bench.
As
noted
previously,
it
is
quite
possible
that
he
confused
this
Board
with
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
and
that
he
felt
some
hostility
to
the
Department.
Whatever
the
reason,
I
am
left
with
the
disquieting
impression
that
the
appellant
might
well
have
had
a
valid
basis
for
appeal
which
was
not
proved.
I
trust
these
additional
remarks
will
be
of
assistance
to
future
litigants
in
preparing
for
the
hearings
of
their
appeals.
This
appeal
must
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.