Christie
A.C.J.T.C.:
These
appeals
are
governed
by
the
Informal
Procedure
prescribed
under
section
18
and
following
sections
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Act.
The
years
under
review
are
1990,
1991,
1992.
The
appellants
are
husband
and
wife
and
the
appeals
were
heard
on
common
evidence.
At
the
time
relevant
to
these
appeals
Ryan
Sutcliffe
was
the
owner
of
51%
of
the
shares
of
R.D.
Sutcliffe
Contracting
Inc.
(“the
corporation”)
and
his
wife
owned
49%.
In
reassessing
Ryan
Sutcliffe
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(“the
Minister”)
added
these
amounts
to
his
income:
1990
-
$30,600.00;
1991
-
$9,100.00;
1992
-
$9,100.00.
In
addition
these
amounts
were
added
to
this
appellant’s
income
as
benefits
conferred
on
him
as
a
shareholder
of
the
corporation:
1990
-
$2,341.00;
1992
-
$3,069.00.
These
additions
pertained
to
travel
expenses
incurred
by
this
appellant
and
paid
for
by
the
corporation.
They
are
said
by
counsel
for
the
respondent
to
be
personal
expenditures.
Other
matters
were
dealt
with
in
the
reassessments
that
are
not
in
dispute.
In
reassessing
Patricia
Sutcliffe
the
Minister
added
these
amounts
to
her
income:
1990
-
$9,200.00;
1991
-
$3,300.00;
1992
-
$3,800.00.
In
addition
these
amounts
were
added
to
her
income
as
benefits
conferred
on
her
as
a
shareholder
of
the
corporation:
1990
-
$2,249.00;
1992
-
$2,780.00.
Again
they
relate
to
travel
expenses
paid
for
by
the
corporation
and
are
said
by
counsel
for
the
respondent
to
be
personal
expenditures.
Other
matters
were
dealt
with
in
the
reassessments
concerning
Patricia
Sutcliffe
that
are
not
in
dispute.
Included
in
the
assumptions
of
fact
relied
on
by
the
Minister
in
reassessing
Ryan
Sutcliffe’s
liability
to
tax
is
what
is
said
in
paragraphs
9(d)
to
(k)
and
paragraphs
(1),
(m),
(n)
of
the
Reply
to
the
Notice
of
Appeal
filed
by
him.
They
read:
9.
In
so
reassessing
the
Appellant,
the
Minister
made
the
following
assumptions
of
fact:
(d)
at
all
material
times
the
Appellant
was
employed
as
the
office
manager
of
the
Corporation;
(e)
in
1990,
1991
and
1992
the
Appellant
reported
employment
earnings
from
the
Corporation
of
$31,800.00,
$26,400.00
and
$23,550.00
respectively;
(f)
in
1990,
1991
and
1992
the
Appellant
received
employment
earnings
from
the
Corporation
of
$62,000.00,
$35,500.00
and
$32,650.00
respectively;
(g)
the
Appellant
understated
his
employment
earnings
from
the
Corporation
by
$30,600.00,
$9,100.00
and
$9,100.00
respectively;
(h)
at
all
material
times
the
Appellant
supported
two
children,
Donald
and
Tyler
Sutcliffe
(‘Donald’
and
‘Tyler’);
(i)
Donald
was
born
on
January
22,
1979
and
Tyler
was
born
on
November
28,
1980;
(j)
at
all
material
times
Donald
and
Tyler
were
not
employed
by
the
Corporation;
(k)
the
payments
comprising
the
understated
amounts
so
described
in
subparagraph
(g)
above
are
earnings
from
employment
with
the
Corporation
for
the
Appellant;
Benefits
Conferred
on
a
Shareholder
(l)
in
1990,
1991
and
1992
the
Corporation,
paid
and
expensed,
among
other
things,
respective
amounts
of
$1,518.00,
$4,347.00
and
$1,178.00
as
travel
expenses;
(m)
the
said
amounts
were
personal
travel
expenses
of
the
Appellant
for
vacation
trips
to
Alabama,
Florida
and
Las
Vegas,
Nevada;
(n)
in
1990,
1991
and
1992
a
benefit
was
conferred
on
the
Appellant
in
his
capacity
as
a
shareholder
of
the
Corporation
in
respective
amounts
of
$1,518.00,
$4,347.00
and
$1,178.00.
Included
in
the
assumptions
of
fact
relied
on
by
the
Minister
in
reassessing
Patricia
Sutcliffe’s
liability
to
tax
is
what
is
said
in
paragraphs
9(d)
to
(k)
and
paragraphs
(1),
(m),
(n)
of
the
Reply
to
the
Notice
of
Appeal
filed
by
her.
They
read:
9.
In
so
reassessing
the
Appellant,
the
Minister
made
the
following
assumptions
of
fact:
(d)
at
all
material
times
the
Appellant
was
employed
as
the
office
manager
of
the
Corporation;
(e)
in
1990,
1991
and
1992
the
Appellant
reported
employment
earnings
from
the
Corporation
of
$31,800.00,
$26,400.00
and
$23,550.00
respectively;
(f)
in
1990,
1991
and
1992
the
Appellant
received
employment
earnings
from
the
Corporation
of
$41,000.00,
$29,700.00
and
$27,350.00
respectively;
(g)
the
Appellant
understated
her
employment
earnings
from
the
Corporation
by
$9,200.00,
$3,300.00
and
$3,800.00
respectively;
(h)
at
all
material
times
the
Appellant
supported
two
children,
Donald
and
Tyler
Sutcliffe;
(‘Donald’
and
‘Tyler’);
(1)
Donald
was
born
on
January
22,
1979
and
Tyler
was
born
on
November
28,
1980;
(j)
at
all
material
times
Donald
and
Tyler
were
not
employed
by
the
Corporation;
(k)
the
payments
comprising
the
understated
amounts
so
described
in
subparagraph
(g)
above
are
earnings
from
employment
with
the
Corporation
for
the
appellant;
Benefits
Conferred
on
a
Shareholder
(l)
in
1990
and
1992
the
Corporation,
paid
and
expensed,
among
other
things,
respective
amounts
of
$4,589.00
and
$5,672.00
as
travel
expenses;
(m)
the
said
amounts
were
personal
travel
expenses
of
the
Appellant
and
her
spouse
for
vacation
trips
to
Alabama,
Florida
and
Las
Vegas,
Nevada;
(n)
in
1990
and
1992
a
benefit
was
conferred
on
the
Appellant
in
her
capacity
as
a
shareholder
of
the
Corporation
in
respective
amounts
of
$2,249.00
(49%
x
$4,589.00)
and
$2,780.00
(49%
x
$5,672.00).
The
corporation
issued
T4
slips
to
Donald
Sutcliffe
regarding
1990,
1991,
1992.
They
show
employment
income
allegedly
received
by
him
from
the
corporation
of
$27,800.00,
$6,200.00,
$6,450.00
respectively.
He
testified
on
behalf
of
the
appellants.
His
examination-in-chief
in
its
entirety
follows:
Q.
In
1990
—
actually,
how
old
are
you
right
now?
A.
Eighteen.
Q.
In
1990
you
were
then?
A.
Eleven
years.
Q.
Eleven
years
old
in
1990,
twelve
in
1991
and
thirteen
in
1992?
A.
M’hmm.
Q.
And
what
age
did
you
first
start
helping
your
father
in
the
family
business?
A.
I’m
not
really
certain.
Like
we
kind
of
just
did
odd
jobs
and
that
whenever
he
needed
it.
Q.
You
live
in
a
small
town,
very
small
town?
A.
M’hmm.
Q.
Is
it
standard
that
there
is
not
much
to
do
other
than
help
out
with
the
family
business,
when
asked?
A.
Pretty
well
everybody
does
that.
Q.
Your
did
always
expected
you
to
help
out
whenever
he
asked
you
to
do
certain
things?
A.
M’hmm.
Q.
Thinking
back
to
the
summer
of
1990,
and
I
believe
there
was
work
going
on
that
year
at
the
golf
course,
did
you
actively
work?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What
were
some
of
the
things
that
you.
would
have
done
that
summer
and
after
school
and
on
weekends
for
your
father’s
business?
A.
Some
of
the
stuff,
like
if
they
need
—
if
some
of
the
workers
would
need
items
such
as
rakes
and
shovels
and
if
they
need
messages
related
and
stuff
like
that.
Q.
Did
you
lay
sod,
rake?
The
Crown:
Your
Honour,
I
think
the
witness
is
being
led
at
this
point.
His
Honour:
Just
try
to
avoid
leading
questions.
One
of
the
problems
with
a
leading
question
is
that
it
detracts
from
the
value
of
its
evidence.
Mr.
Van
Camp:
Yes,
I’m
aware
of
that
sir.
His
Honour:
You
are
putting
words
in
the
witness’s
mouth
and
we
want
to
hear
what
he
has
to
say.
Mr.
Van
Camp:
Well,
I’m
just
giving
examples,
did
he
do
certain
things.
Q.
Would
you,
at
the
golf
course,
have
laid
sod?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did
you
get
paid
for
doing
this?
A.
A
small
amount.
We
just
kind
of
had
understandings
with
mom
and
dad
at
that
time.
Q.
Do
you
continue
to
work
with
your
dad
to
this
day?
A.
On
and
off,
just
kind
of
still
doing
odd
jobs.
Q.
At
what
age
would
you
have
first
ran
a
machine
or
operated
any
heavy
equipment,
or
anything
like
that?
A.
I’m
not
really
sure.
Q.
You’re
not
really
sure.
Okay,
no
problem.
If,
during
this
time,
you
have
been
asked
what
you
were
doing
for
the
summer,
what
would
you
have
told
friends?
A.
Just
kind
of
as
a
general
labourer.
Q.
The
gopher?
A.
Yes,
basically.
Q.
I
used
the
word
‘gopher’
Your
Honour
because
I
used
to
be
a
vehicle
for
‘go
for
this’
and
‘go
for
that’
in
construction.
Every
site
has
one
of
those.
I
would
like
to
submit
—
actually,
no.
That’s
all
I
have
for
this
witness.
In
cross-examination
this
exchange
took
place
between
counsel
for
the
respondent
and
the
witness:
The
Crown:
Q.
All
right,
if
we
could
just
review
R-1.
The
first
one
is
a
bit
hard
to
read
but
I
believe
it
shows
$27,800.00.
Can
you
see
that
in
the
top
corner
of
the
first
T4?
A.
Just
right
here?
Q.
Yes.
A.
M’hmm.
Q.
Now
you
say
that
you
wouldn’t
have
been
paid
that
amount
in
1990;
is
that
correct?
A.
Not
directly.
Q.
Would
you
have
been
paid
it
at
all?
A.
Yeah,
we
at
that
time
went
to
a
boarding
—
like
we
went
to
a
private
school
and
so
that
that
was
kind
of
just
understood
that
that
was
kind
of
working
towards
our
future.
So
they
kind
of
paid
us.
His
Honour:
What
year
is
that?
The
Crown:
That’s
1990.
Unfortunately
the
date
is
cut
off
on
it
Your
Honour.
And
I
believe
the
middle
one
is
for
1991
although
the
date
is
cut
off
on
it
as
well.
Mr.
Van
Camp:
Yes,
that’s
correct.
The
Crown:
Q.
So
in
1991,
if
you
look
at
the
middle
T4?
A.
This
one
here?
Q.
Yes.
That’s
$6,200.00
again
that
$6,200.00
would
not
have
been
paid
to
you
directly?
A.
No,
I
guess
again
the
same
circumstances.
Q.
And
as
with
the
one
for
1991,
the
$6,450.00,
the
same
arrangement?
A.
Yes,
the
same.
His
Honour:
That
would
be
1992?
The
Crown:
1992,
that’s
right
Your
Honour.
Those
are
all
the
questions
I
have
for
this
witness
Your
Honour.
In
re-examination
this
question
was
asked
and
this
answer
given:
“Q.
Are
you
aware
that
your
dad
kept
most
of
the
money
for
your
future
use?
A.
Yes.
Yes,
it
was
discussed
at
the
time.”
The
corporation
issued
T4
slips
to
Tyler
Sutcliffe
regarding
1990,
1991,
1992.
These
relate
to
employment
income
allegedly
received
by
him
from
the
corporation
in
those
years
of
$12,000.00,
$6,200.00,
$6,450.00
respectively.
The
witness
had
this
to
say
when
examined-in-chief:
Q.
How
old
are
you
now?
A.
Seventeen.
Q.
So
in
1990
you
would
have
been
10
years
of
age,
in
1991
you
would
have
been
11
and
in
1992
you
would
have
been
12?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did
you
work
with
your
father
or
for
your
father’s
business
during
those
periods,
after
school
and
in
the
summertime?
A.
M’hmm.
Q.
What
sort
of
jobs
would
you
do?
A.
Whatever,
just
gopher.
Go
and
get
this,
a
rake.
His
Honour:
I’m
sorry
witness,
could
you
speak
up?
I
can
hardly
hear
you.
The
Witness:
Sorry,
Get
a
rake
and
do
whatever
he
told
me
to
do.
Nothing
too
hard.
Just
get
something
out
of
the
truck
or
whatever.
Mr,
Van
Camp:
Q.
At
what
age
did
you
first
operate
a
machine?
A.
I
would
have
been
in
grade
6.
Q.
Eleven
years
of
age.
Q.
What
machines
now
can
you
operate,
if
you
can
explain,
or
have
operated?
A.
I
can
run
a
rubber
tired
loader
and
a
D8
bulldozer.
I
can
run
an
estimator.
Q.
Do
you
feel
you
have
worked
for
your
father
during
these
times?
Do
you
feel
that
was
your
summer
job?
A,
Yeah.
Q.
Do
you
continue
to
work
for
your
dad
at
times?
A.
Yep.
Q.
Did
you
get
paid
for
your
work?
A.
I
think
I
got
paid
for
what
I
was
worth.
Q.
The
same
thing,
you
live
in
a
small
town,
there’s
not
much
else
to
do?
What
other
things
would
you
do
as
a
teenager,
as
a
pre-teen?
A.
Work
on
the
car
and
what
not.
Q.
Were
you
aware
that
your
dad
kept
most
of
the
money
he
paid
you
for
your
future
use?
A.
Yeah,
paid
on
a
future
occasion.
A.
I
have
no
further
questions
for
Tyler.
In
cross-examination
the
T4s
just
referred
to
were
entered
as
Exhibit
R-2.
This
evidence
followed:
The
Crown:
Q.
If
we
can
just
review
this
document
that
has
been
marked
as
R-
2.
The
first
document,
the
document
on
the
first
third
of
the
page
I
believe
relates
to
the
1990
taxation
year
and
it
shows
an
amount
of
$12,000.00
as
wages.
Is
your
evidence
that
you
didn’t
receive
that
amount?
His
Honour:
Now
just
a
moment
counsel.
Oh
I
see,
12,000.
I
thought
it
was
1,200.
The
Crown:
Yes,
I
thought
so
initially
as
well
Your
Honour.
But
it
has
three
Zeros,
His
Honour:
Yes,
Okay.
The
Crown:
Q.
Did
you
receive
the
$12,000.00?
A.
No.
Q.
In
1991,
the
middle
document,
it
shows
$6,200.00
as
employment
income.
Did
you
receive
that
$6,200.00?
A.
No.
Q.
And
in
1992,
the
final
third
of
the
document
shows
employment
income
of
$6,450.00.
Did
you
receive
that
amount?
A.
No.
Q.
All
right.
Your
Honour,
that’s
all
my
questions.
This
was
said
in
the
course
of
re-examination
by
the
appellants’
agent:
Q.
Tyler,
at
age
10
would
you
have
had
your
own
bank
account
and
would
you
have
been
fully
functional
in
operating
your
own
bank
account
at
that
time?
A.
No.
Q.
So
your
father
would
have
probably
kept
the
money
for
your
best
interests?
A.
Yes.
His
Honour:
Your
evidence
is
that
these
amounts
of
money,
that
are
in
this
document,
were
kept
by
your
father
for
your
future
benefit;
is
that
right?
The
Witness:
Yes.
His
Honour:
All
right.
You
may
step
down.?
There
is
in
evidence
a
letter
dated
December
5,
1997,
from
Jack
Henderson
of
Lindsay
Used
Tractor
Parts
Ltd.
It
reads:
Back
in
1990,
during
construction
of
Wolf
Run
Golf
Course,
that
I
was
on
the
job
and
remember
talking
with
Donald
and
Tyler
as
one
of
the
boys
was
not
to
keen
on
all
the
raking
he
was
doing
and
was
trying
to
get
his
chance
at
running
the
tractor.
These
boys
have
worked
along
side
their
father
for
many
years.
This
is
the
only
document
placed
in
evidence
on
behalf
of
the
appellants.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
objected
to
its
being
received
in
evidence
in
the
absence
of
an
opportunity
to
cross-examine
Mr.
Henderson.
Nevertheless
I
allowed
it
to
be
entered
as
an
exhibit
on
the
basis
of
Ainsley
v.
R.
(May
26,
1997),
Doc.
A-610-96
(Fed.
C.A.).
Mr.
Sutcliffe
described
the
work
done
by
Donald
and
Tyler
in
these
words:
“Odd
jobs.
They
have
pretty
well
covered
it,
raking,
running
to
get
stuff.
They
weren’t
experienced
operators
so
I
couldn’t
put
them
on
a
machine
to
do
a
full
fledged
operating
job
so
I
just
fit
them
in
to
do
odds
and
ends.”
He
went
on
to
say
that
his
intention
was
to
teach
the
children
the
work
ethic;
also
that
he
would
have
had
to
hire
someone
else
to
do
the
work
they
did.
This
exchange
between
him
and
his
agent
followed:
Q.
Why
wouldn’t
you
have
given
them
a
weekly
pay
cheque
at
that
time?
A.
I
didn’t
feel
they
were
capable
of
managing
that
type
of
money.
Q.
Were
you,
in
allocating
the
children
wages,
was
there
a
secondary
reason,
other
than
paying
them
for
what
they
were
worth?
Were
you
receiving
advice
that
this
is
something
that
—
À.
My
accountant
dragged
me
through
that
at
the
time
and
said
that
was
totally
—
and
I
must
rely
on
professional
advice
because
I’m
not
an
accountant.
And,
yes,
he
guided
me
in
that
direction
saying
that
was
okay
to
do
so.
On
the
matter
of
the
trips
paid
for
by
the
corporation
and
claimed
by
it
as
business
expenses
three
journeys
were
mentioned,
namely,
Florida,
Las
Vegas
and
Alabama.
About
the
trip
to
Alabama
the
witness
said:
I
met
with
several
individuals.
We
had
gone
to
a
what
they
call
a
Million
Dollar
Forum
class
and
we
had
developed
some
connections
in
there.
And
at
that
time
the
economy
in
Ontario
was
slowing
down
and
we
had
done
this
golf
course
and
some
work
on
a
couple
of
others,
and
we
had
developed
some
expertise.
And
there
was
a
prospect
of
more
golf
courses
to
build.
And
in
this
particular
trip
there
were
two
or
three
individuals
that
were
interested.
Nothing
in
the
end
ever
materialized
out
of
it
but
that
was
the
initial
intent
of
that
trip.
He
added
that
he
thought
100%
of
the
expenses
for
this
trip
was
business
related.
The
trip
to
Florida
was
by
automobile
with
his
family.
The
witness
was
asked
this
question
and
gave
this
answer:
“Q.
What
business
purposes
on
the
trip
to
Florida
would
there
be?
A.
Again
there
was
a
meeting
with
a
fellow
by
the
name
of
Jim
Malloy
on
that
trip,
which
had
to
do
with
a
golf
course,
which
never
materialized.”
This
was
said
regarding
the
Las
Vegas
trip:
Q.
What
is
the
main
intention
of
that
trip?
A.
Again
that
we
—
I
met
with
a
couple,
Dusty
Star,
I
think
was
her
name,
again
out
of
this
Million
Dollar
Forum.
There
was
a
fellow
by
the
name
of
Mark
Richter
Hanson.
What
happened
here,
there
was
a
fellow
by
the
name
of
Mark
Richter
Hanson
who
was
involved
in
the
Million
Dollar
Forum
and
he
spread
our
name
all
around
the
seminars.
And
there
was
people
calling
from
all
over
the
U.S.
with
a
prospective
job
here
and
a
prospective
one
there.
And
that’s
how
I
come
to
get
the
different
connections
all
of
a
sudden.
Mr.
Sutcliffe
said
with
respect
to
the
Las
Vegas
and
Florida
trips
that
he
thought
only
70
to
80%
could
be
regarded
as
non-personal
expenditures.
In
the
cross-examination
of
Mr.
Sutcliffe
by
counsel
for
the
Crown
this
exchange
took
place:
Q.
Mr.
Sutcliffe,
I
understand
that
arrangement,
with
respect
to
the
wages
out
of
the
company,
was
that
throughout
the
year
wages
would
be
paid
to
yourself
and
to
your
wife
and
then
at
the
end
of
the
year
the
wages
were
divided
between
yourself,
your
wife
and
the
two
children?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So
that
some
reallocation
was
done
at
the
end
of
the
year;
is
that
how
it
worked?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And
that
with
respect
to
your
children’s
wages,
if
I
can
call
them
that,
the
amounts
were
journal
entried
to
your
children’s
credit?
Is
that
how
it
worked?
A.
Yes,
I
believe
so.
I
believe,
in
answering
the
question,
yes.
Q.
So
it
is
fair
to
say
the
children
didn’t
actually
have
any
access
to
the
money?
A.
No,
they
did
not.
As
will
have
been
seen
from
Exhibits
R-l
and
R-2,
the
amounts
said
to
have
been
earned
in
1990
by
Donald
and
Tyler
are
$37,800.00
and
$12,000.00
for
a
total
of
$39,800.00.
The
Minister
allocated
$30,600.00
to
Mr.
Sutcliffe
and
$9,200.00
to
his
wife.
The
total
earnings
for
1991
and
1992
were
$12,400.00
and
$12,900.00.
Nine
thousand,
one
hundred
dollars
was
allocated
to
Mr.
Sutcliffe
and
$3,300.00
to
his
wife
regarding
1991.
In
respect
of
1992
$9,100.00
was
allocated
to
Mr.
Sutcliffe
and
$3,800.00
to
his
wife.
These
allocations
are
not
in
issue
in
these
appeals.
Mr.
Sutcliffe
said
that
the
wages
for
the
children
were
not
based
on
an
hourly
rate.
So
much
money
was
simply
allocated
to
them
based
on
the
corporation’s
profits
for
the
year.
Regarding
the
Alabama
trip
he
said
40
to
50%
of
the
time
was
spent
in
informal
type
meetings
about
golf
courses.
In
Florida
“maybe
30%”
of
the
time
was
spent
in
meetings
and
that
in
Las
Vegas
the
percentage
30.
No
business
arose
out
of
any
of
these
trips.
It
“seemed”
to
the
witness
that
the
Alabama
trip
was
made
in
the
summer.
The
trip
to
Las
Vegas
was
near
December
1st
and
the
one
to
Florida
was
right
after
Christmas.
The
children
were
not
on
the
trips
to
Alabama
and
Las
Vegas.
They
only
involved
both
appellants
and
they
travelled
by
air.
This
exchange
took
place
between
Patricia
Sutcliffe
and
her
agent:
Q.
Did
you,
with
your
husband,
agree
to
keep
most
of
the
money,
that
they
are
earning,
for
them
for
their
future
use?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Why
was
that?
Their
ages,
they
couldn’t
handle
bank
accounts?
A.
At
that
age
they
didn’t
need
it
and
we
felt
their
education
would
be
more
important.
She
also
said
that
her
husband
insisted
that
Donald
and
Tyler
work
the
same
hours
as
the
other
employees.
With
reference
to
the
amounts
set
out
in
the
T4
slips
issued
to
Donald
and
Tyler
included
in
the
assumptions
relied
on
by
the
Minister
in
reassessing
the
appellants’
liability
to
income
tax
are
those
set
out
in
paragraph
9(j)
of
each
Reply
to
the
Notices
of
Appeal.
They
read:
“at
all
material
times
Donald
and
Tyler
were
not
employed
by
the
Corporation”.
In
Youngman
v.
R.
(1990),
90
D.T.C.
6322
(Fed.
C.A.)
Pratte
J.A.,
delivering
the
judgment
of
the
Court,
said
at
page
6325:
I
will
deal
first
with
the
question
of
onus
of
proof.
The
rule
is
well
known.
When
the
Minister
has,
in
his
pleadings,
disclosed
the
assumptions
of
facts
on
which
the
assessment
was
made,
and
when,
as
is
the
case
here,
it
is
not
contested
that
the
assessment
was
in
fact
based
on
those
assumptions,
the
taxpayer
has
the
onus
of
disproving
the
Minister’s
assumptions.
I
am
not
satisfied
that
a
contract
of
employment
was
entered
into
between
the
corporation
and
either
Donald
or
Tyler
in
respect
of
the
years
under
review.
Apart
from
the
T4
slips
there
is
no
documentary
evidence
to
sustain
the
existence
of
such
contracts.
The
evidence
is
that
no
rate
of
remuneration
was
established
and
the
amounts
set
out
in
the
T4
slips
were
not
received
by
the
children.
Donald
testified
that
he
received:
“A
small
amount”.
I
expect
that
this
was
by
way
of
periodic
allowance
which
is
often
given
by
parents
to
young
children.
Frequently
it
relates
to
the
doing
of
minor
chores.
The
inference
I
draw
from
the
evidence
is
that
the
appellants
decided
to
put
aside
substantial
funds
from
the
earnings
of
the
corporation
for
the
benefit
of
the
children
in
the
future.
Education
was
specifically
mentioned.
This
is
a
perfectly
acceptable
purpose.
But
what
is
unacceptable,
however,
is
to
have
other
taxpayers
indirectly
share
this
expense
through
unauthorized
deductions
from
the
corporation’s
income.
The
deductions
in
question
are
properly
attributable
to
the
appellants.
With
reference
to
the
trips
to
Alabama,
Florida
and
Las
Vegas,
the
evidence
regarding
business
purpose
is
too
sketchy
to
enable
me
to
be
satisfied
on
a
balance
of
probability
that
the
Minister
erred
in
his
reassessments
in
this
regard.
The
appeals
are
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content