R
St-Onge
(orally:
April
28,
1978):—The
appeal
of
Dr
T
N
Siller
came
before
me
on
April
28,
1978,
at
the
City
of
Montréal,
Québec,
and
the
matter
at
issue
is
whether
the
appellant
is
allowed
to
deduct
from
his
income
an
alleged
business
loss
of
$3,320
in
his
1974
taxation
year.
I
consider
as
being
proven
the
following
allegations
of
the
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal
and
I
quote
at
paragraph
4:
a)
during
his
1974
taxation
year,
the
appellant
was
a
physician
and
surgeon
carrying
on
his
profession
in
the
Montréal
area;
b)
on
November
5,
1974,
the
appellant
made
a
declaration
to
the
effect
that
he
was
carrying
on
business
alone
under
the
firm
name
of
“T
P
Air
Services
Reg’d”;
c)
in
this
declaration,
the
appellant
alleged
that
he
was
carrying
on
the
business
of
buying,
selling
and
leasing
aircrafts
of
all
kinds
and
descriptions
as
well
as
selling
and
marketing
plans
for
modification
to
aircrafts;
d)
however,
the
appellant
obtained
on
January
22,
1975,
from
the
Department
of
Transport,
a
certificate
for
one
aircraft;
e)
this
certificate
was
issued
for
private
purpose
instead
of
commercial
purpose;
f)
from
November
5,
1974,
to
December
31,
1974,
the
airplane
bought
by
the
appellant
was
not
operated
at
all;
h)
for
the
1974
taxation
year,
the
respondent
properly
disallowed
$3,320
claimed
by
the
appellant
as
deductible
business
loss.
Heard
as
a
witness
the
appellant
explained
the
following:
on
November
8,
1974
he
purchased
an
airplane
for
some
$20,000
with
the
intention
of
leasing
the
said
airplane.
During
the
three
months
of
1974
the
plane
was
not
allowed
to
fly
because
there
were
all
kinds
of
mechanical
trouble.
In
1974
the
appellant
had
a
loss
of
$3,320,
in
1975
a
loss
of
$14,476,
in
1976
a
loss
of
$11,015
and
in
1977
a
loss
of
$7,590.
According
to
the
evidence,
only
three
persons
used
that
plane
in
1975
and
it
was
not
serviceable
in
1974
as
well
as
in
1975
up
to
the
1st
July.
According
to
the
evidence
adduced,
it
seems
that
there
was
no
reasonable
expectation
of
profit
in
1974,
in
1975,
in
1976
and
in
1977.
On
looking
at
the
main
factor
to
decide
whether
there
is
a
reasonable
expectation
of
profits,
there
are
certain
points
to
consider
such
as
the
time
devoted
to
the
business
by
the
appellant
and
the
nature
of
the
expenses.
In
the
case
at
bar,
there
is
no
expense
for
advertising
or
for
promotion
and
I
would
like
to
mention
the
expenses
claimed
for
1974
which
are
fuel
and
parking,
$116;
repairs
and
maintenance,
$344;
insurance,
$1,475;
licenses,
$35;
office,
$25
and
depreciation,
$1,325.
The
continuous
losses,
the
type
of
activity
of
the
appellant,
all
this
shows
that
it
is
absolutely
impossible
to
operate
a
business
such
as
this
one
with
a
reasonable
expectation
of
profit.
Consequently,
for
these
reasons,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content