A
J
Frost
(orally:
October
13,
1976):—I
have
listened
carefully
to
the
evidence
and
I
shall
now
give
my
decision
with
respect
to
Appeal
No
76-483,
between
Irving
Henry
Graham,
appellant,
and
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
respondent.
This
appeal
is
from
Notices
of
Reassessment
dated
September
21,
1974,
in
respect
of
the
appellant’s
1970
and
1972
taxation
years,
and
from
a
Notice
of
Reassessment
dated
March
3,
1976,
in
respect
of
the
appellant’s
1971
taxation
year,
wherein
interest
received
in
the
amount
of
$6,346
in
1972
was
added
to
income
as
it
did
not
come
within
the
provisions
of
subsection
39(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Application
Rules,
1971
and
expenditures
with
respect
to
all
three
years
under
appeal
were
disallowed
on
the
grounds
that
no
adequate
proof
existed
with
respect
to
the
alleged
payments.
The
appellant
owned
rental
properties
in
the
City
of
Calgary
from
which
he
collected
rentals
on
a
cash
basis
and
operated
a
truck
or
trucks
under
the
name
of
AA
Auto
Transfer.
He
also
had
substantial
investments
on
which
he
received
interest
and
dividends.
With
respect
to
the
interest
received
from
the
Security
Trust
for
a
three-year
period,
the
averaging
provisions
of
the
Act
do
not
apply
and
the
Board
has
no
alternative
but
to
confirm
the
Minister’s
position
with
respect
to
the
interest
received
from
Security
Trust.
With
respect
to
labour,
expenses,
and
repairs,
the
appellant
did
not
discharge
the
onus
on
him
to
prove
his
expenses.
In
my
opinion
the
appellant
did
not
keep
proper
books
of
account
and
his
receipts
for
cash
disbursements
were
inadequate
as
vouchers.
He
did
not
follow
recognized
bookkeeping
procedures
in
handling
his
business
transactions.
I
do
not
question
for
a
moment
the
fact
that
some
decorating
and
repairs
were
made
and
that
some
expenses
were
incurred,
but
proof
of
these
disbursements
was
lacking.
The
vouchers
submitted
and
examined
by
this
Board
were
not,
in
my
opinion,
adequate
vouchers
in
a
business
sense.
As
far
as
other
items
before
the
Board
were
concerned,
the
appellant
failed
to
discharge
the
onus
on
him
that
the
Minister
made
an
incorrect
assessment.
The
Board
has
no
alternative
but
to
dismiss
the
appeal
in
every
respect
for
all
three
years.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content