Taylor
J.T.C.C.
(orally):
—
This
is
the
appeal
of
Andrew
A.
J.
Van
Doodewaard
with
respect
to
his
1990
and
1991
taxation
years.
There
is
only
on
issue.
Mr.
Van
Doodewaard
was
an
account
executive,
perhaps
more
commonly
termed
a
salesman,
with
CCH.
In
the
year
1990
his
commission
income
was
$91,232.00
and
from
that
he
deducted
an
amount
of
$24,969.79
after
appropriate
allowances
for
personal
use
of
the
automobile.
That
amount
was
allowed
by
the
Minister
which
contained
an
item
of
rental
of
a
downtown
Toronto
condominium
unit
which
the
Appellant
used
as
office
space.
His
principal
residence
was
some
200
miles
away
and
he
normally
returned
to
his
principal
residence
on
the
weekends.
On
occasions
he
stayed
overnight
in
his
downtown
Toronto
condominium.
Evidence
indicates
perhaps
two
nights
a
week,
but
that
varied
and
there
was
nothing
specific
about
it.
In
1991,
his
commission
income
was
$95,280.00
and
his
deductions
for
expenses
were
$32,175.00.
In
the
first
instance
the
rental
was
$8,575.00
and
there
was
$4,287.50
of
that
which
the
Minister
did
not
allow,
50
percent.
In
1990
it
is
$10,500.00
and
the
Minister
disallowed
one-half,
$5,250.00.
Other
than
the
disallowance
of
50
percent
of
the
cost
of
the
rental
of
the
downtown
condominium,
the
Minister
has
allowed
all
the
other
expenses.
The
issue
there
is
clear.
The
Minister
has
accepted
the
principle
of
a
requirement
for
an
office
location
in
the
territory
serviced
by
the
Appellant.
It
comes
down,
therefore,
to
what
part
of
this
was
business
and
what
part
of
it
was
personal.
The
evidence
from
the
Appellant
and
two
witnesses
is
that
a
very,
very
minimal
part
of
the
downtown
business
condominium
was
used
for
personal
purposes.
I’m
quite
satisfied
that
any
other
arrangement
for
handling
his
business
requirements
as
a
commission
salesman
would
have
been
more
expensive
than
this,
but
that
is
no
argument
in
itself
of
deductibility,
merely
that
some
alternative
would
have
been
more
expensive.
the
simple
fact
is
he
used
this
business
condominium
far
more
than
50
percent
for
business
purposes.
My
only
debate
is
whether
the
entire
amount
should
be
allowed
or
whether
a
modest
amount
should
be
charged
fro
personal
use.
I
think
under
the
circumstances
the
latter
is
the
more
appropriate
route
and
I
am
satisfied
that
the
appeal
should
be
allowed
to
the
extent
that
90
percent
of
the
cost
of
the
downtown
condominium
in
toronto
should
be
allowed
for
business
purposes
and
10
percent
regarded
as
personal.
I
say
that
with
some
reservation
because
I’m
not
at
all
certain
that
a
good
argument
could
not
be
made
that
the
entire
amount
would
be
deductible.
Therefore,
that
will
be
the
decision,
90
percent
of
the
cost
will
be
allowed
and
10
percent
will
be
reduced
for
personal
purposes.
Than
you
very
kindly.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content