Date: 20010706
Docket: 2000-3506-IT-I, 2001-1922-IT-I
BETWEEN:
JAMES G. TODD,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Beaubier, J.T.C.C.
[1] These appeals pursuant to the Informal Procedure were heard together on common evidence at Calgary, Alberta on June 18, 2001. Mr. Todd and Peter Streukens testified. Mr. Todd's testimony was supported by Mr. Streuken's testimony and by his daily diaries, which are not exhibits, for the years in question. After the fact and based on his place entries and recollection from the diaries, Mr. Todd entered various mileages into his diaries which are accepted by the Court. He testified to the truth of these entries. He is believed. As a result the diaries are accepted as a vehicle log book.
[2] The Appeals are from assessments for 1996, 1997 and 1998. In Court Mr. Todd disputed the following assessments:
(1) In 1996
|
Automobile Standby Charge |
$7,359.56 |
|
Parking |
$877.50 |
(2) 1997 and 1998 (Vehicle alleged to be leased)
|
1997 |
|
|
Automobile Standby Charge |
$6,871.00 |
|
1998 |
|
|
Automobile Standby Charge |
$9,734.00 |
[3] In the course of the three years, two Yukon GMC vehicles were used by the Appellant who founded, expanded and operated Ice Drilling Systems Inc., a drilling service corporation with business operating headquarters in Red Deer, Alberta and financial operations in Calgary. He was its President and Chief Operating Officer. On each business day of the three years he usually worked in Red Deer in the morning and Calgary in the afternoon and drove the 160 kilometers each way between the two cities, using his cell phone for business purposes while driving.
[4] The evidence satisfied the Court that his business mileage claimed was correct. He also proved that:
(1) The 1998 lease cost was $8,544.00 and not $8,676.96 as alleged by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
(2) In 1997 the Yukon was leased.
(3) All of the parking charges assessed against the Appellant were in fact for business parking and were of no personal benefit to the Appellant.
[5] As a result, the Court accepts the Appellant's statements of personal and business mileage contained in his calculations attached to his Notice of Appeal filed in Appeal 2000-3506(IT)I. The net result is:
|
(1) |
1996 Kilometers |
|
|
Total |
72,000 |
|
|
Business |
63,680 |
|
|
Personal |
8,320 |
|
(2) |
1997 Kilometers |
|
|
Total |
59,300 |
|
|
Business |
55,890 |
|
|
Personal |
3,410 |
|
(3) |
1998 Kilometers |
|
|
Total |
50,000 |
|
|
Business |
46,200 |
|
|
Personal |
3,800 |
[6] On that basis, Crown Counsel submitted the following calculations respecting the personal benefit to the Appellant, which are accepted respecting each year:
 |
Reduced Standby Charge
A x [2% x (C x D) + 2/3 x (E - F)]
B owned leased
1000 x 365 (8676.96 - 0)
30
A lesser of a) to km driven except 12
b) 12000 12
c) e req'd to use ® duties ✔
d) all or subst'ly all ® duties ✔
✔ c)
1996 ✘ d)
N.B. 8320 x [2/3 x 8676.96]
12000
.69 x 5784.64 = 3991.40
3991.40 x 7% = 279.40
Operating 8320 x 13 ¢ = 1081.60
5352.40 37359.56
1997 ✔ c)
✔ b)*
3410 x [2/3 x 8676.96]
12000
.284 x 5784.64 = 1643.80
1643.80 x 7% = 115.07
Operating 3410 x 14 ¢ = 477.40
2236.27 ✔ 6871.00
(* should read d) and not b))
1998 ✔ c)
✔ d)
3800 x [2/3 x 8676.96]
12000
8544
.3167 x diff vehicle?
diff lease amt?
5784.64 = 1831.99
1831.99 x 7% 128.24
Operating 3800 x 14 ¢ = 532.00
2492.23 ✔
9734.40*
(* should read 10,080.90 and not 9734.40)
[7] The Appellant then argued that the word "standby" refers not just to mileage but to time as well. Therefore the time that the vehicle sat parked in a company parking area, or at an airport must also be considered. The converse of this is the overnight time that the vehicle sat at the Appellant's home after work. However, the formula contained in the Income Tax Act speaks for itself. It is not based on time. For this reason, and based on the evidence, the Court finds that Respondent's Counsel's calculations are correct and the appeals respecting vehicle benefits are allowed accordingly. The appeal of the assessment for parking fees in 1996 is allowed. These are all for business parking in Calgary. The Appellant did not pursue his appeal respecting insurance premiums and that appeal is dismissed.
[8] The Appellant was successful in more than 50% of his appeal and he is awarded the sum of $250.00 for out-of-pocket disbursements in proceeding with his appeal and coming from Red Deer to Calgary to prosecute it.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 6th day of July, 2001.
"D.W. Beaubier"
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE NO.: 2000-3506(IT)I
2001-1922(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: James G. Todd v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: June 18, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Judge D.W. Beaubier
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 6, 2001
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Gwen Mah
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
2000-3506(IT)I
BETWEEN:
JAMES G. TODD,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeals heard on common evidence with the appeals of James G. Todd
(2001-1922(IT)I) on June 18, 2001 at Calgary, Alberta
by the Honourable Judge D.W. Beaubier
Appearances
For the Appellant: The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Gwen Mah
JUDGMENT
The appeals from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 1996, 1997 and 1998 taxation years are allowed and the reassessments are referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
The Appellant is awarded one set of costs in the sum of $250.00 on account of out-of-pocket disbursements incurred in the prosecuting of his appeals.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 6th day of July, 2001.
|
"D.W. Beaubier" |
J.T.C.C.
2001-1922(IT)I
BETWEEN:
JAMES G. TODD,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeals heard on common evidence with the appeals of James G. Todd
(2000-3506(IT)I) on June 18, 2001 at Calgary, Alberta
by the Honourable Judge D.W. Beaubier
Appearances
For the Appellant: The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Gwen Mah
JUDGMENT
The appeals from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 1997 and 1998 taxation years are allowed and the reassessments are referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
The Appellant is awarded one set of costs in the sum of $250.00 on account of out-of-pocket disbursements incurred in the prosecuting of his appeals.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 6th day of July, 2001.
|
"D.W. Beaubier" |
J.T.C.C.