Date: 20020725
Docket: 2001-3388-IT-I
BETWEEN:
VALENTINE BAIER,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for judgment
(Delivered orally at Calgary, Alberta on June 6, 2002
and subsequently edited as to form)
Bonner, T.C.J.
[1] I think that neither of you has acted very well in trying to straighten out this thing before coming to court to deal with the matter.
[2] Nevertheless, I have the uncontroverted evidence of the Appellant with respect to the errors and the failures to take proper account of additions over the years, as indicated in the bundle of CCA calculations marked Exhibit A-2. The evidence of the Appellant, although not supported by vouchers and original purchase records relating to the acquisitions of the vehicles is not inherently incredible. I do not have any reason to reject it.
[3] What is the consequence of that? The consequence appears to be that for the 1997 taxation year the Appellant was entitled to $6,645.33 in capital cost allowance in respect of property described in class 10 of schedule 2 minus the $1,329.62. Therefore, the Appellant is entitled to additional capital cost allowance in 1997 of $5,315.75. That relief is in addition to the matters in respect of which the parties have already consented, as indicated at the beginning of the hearing, and in respect of which a written consent to judgment is to be filed. So judgment will go allowing the relief, which the parties are to address in the consent to be filed and, in addition, allowing further capital cost allowance in the 1997 taxation year in respect of property described in class 10 in the amount of $5,315.73.
[4] Although the Appellant has derived some relief, the responsibility for the need for a hearing at all in this case rests on his shoulders as much as on the Crown's. Communications seem to have broken down. There will be no costs.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 25th day of July 2002.
|
"Michael J. Bonner" |
T.C.J.