98-1481(IT)I
BETWEEN:
P.K. SUNDARARAJAN,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on September 9, 1999 at Ottawa, Ontario, by
the Honourable Deputy Judge D.E. Taylor
Appearances
For the Appellant: The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Cathy Chalifour
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1996 taxation year is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of November 1999.
|
"D.E. Taylor" |
D.J.T.C.C.
Date: 19991102
Docket: 98-1481(IT)I
BETWEEN:
P.K. SUNDARARAJAN,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Taylor, D.J.T.C.C.
[1] This is an appeal heard in Ottawa, Ontario on September 9, 1999, against an assessment under the Income Tax Act (the "Act") in which the Respondent disallowed a claim of $1,472.00 as moving expenses for the year 1996. Correspondence from Revenue Canada described the basis of the amount as follows:
"You have not shown that the expenditures of $1,472.00 you claimed as a deduction from income are moving expenses under subsection 62(3). Therefore, you are not entitled to a deduction under subsection 62(1)."
[2] The Notice of Appeal read in part:
"The dispute originates from Revenue Canada's non-acceptance of the receipts produced in support of the Claim. The sections of the income tax act cited by Revenue Canada in their letter of 8 May 1998 do not explicitly make reference to receipts. Such being the case, Revenue Canada not only ask for receipts to support the claim, but, once the receipts were produced, they ask for a particular kind of receipt, as well. This should not be acceptable.
After all is said and done, the tax payer must have a sense of being dealt with fairly and equitably, with common sense and reasonableness as the driving forces in such matters."
[3] From the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the following sets out the Respondent's position:
"In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact:
a) in connection with the commencement of a (sic) employment, on August 24, 1995, the Appellant moved from Ottawa to Toronto;
b) the Minister disallowed, among others, the following amounts as moving expenses:
i) transporting furniture $748
ii) transporting a piano $250
iii) rent (York University) $300
c) the Minister disallowed the amounts of $748 and $250 because the receipts submitted supporting the said expenses were not containing pertinent information, as what kind of services were rendered and who performed it;
d) the expenses for rent were disallowed because no receipt has been submitted by the Appellant."
[4] After a lengthy and argumentive hearing all of which touched on the acceptability of receipts - there origin, form, etc., the Court raised with the parties that there did not appear to be conformity by the Appellant with the opening words of section 62 of the Act: "Where a taxpayer has, at any time, commenced (a) to carry on a business or to be employed at a location in Canada (in this subsection referred to as "the new work location", or ...". There was no evidence that the Appellant had "commenced -- to be employed" as I comprehended the information. Indeed the following exchange took place with the Appellant:
"And during this time and for some time thereafter, as I follow your testimony, you were in the process of looking for new employment; am I correct on that?
No, I did not look for new employment, Your Honour, the employment came my way. I had absolutely no plans to work, except as a cook and a cleaner at home."
[5] Probably for the most laudable of reasons, the Appellant moved to Toronto from Ottawa, and assisted his daughter with her university education by acting as "a cook and a cleaner at home" - that is in her home or more accurately her apartment. Other than for that objective - not as employment - the Appellant had no purpose for the move to Toronto, at the time of the move. Apparently, for some lengthy time thereafter, he had no employment as such and the testimony does not indicate that he ever did get such employment.
[6] I have reviewed the relevant case law - as I see it, thinking there might have been some moderation or clarification in recent jurisprudence, which would permit the Respondent to use the phrase from the Reply to the Notice of Appeal (supra):
"in connection with the commencement of a (sic) employment, on August 24, 1995, the Appellant moved from Ottawa to Toronto;"
I was unable to find any.
[7] In my view this Appellant has failed to meet the basic requirement under section 62 of the Act, irrespective of the propriety of the receipts for which he has claimed a deduction. I would add however, that in the event this situation (lack of compliance with "commenced -- to be employed" should appear insufficient to dismiss the appeal, the evidence and testimony brought forward by the Appellant in support of the receipts was so woefully inadequate, and indeed farcical that the Respondent was fully justified in disallowing the claim.
[8] The appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of November 1999.
|
"D.E. Taylor" |
D.J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE NO.: 98-1481(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: P.K. Sundararajan and H.M.Q.
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: September 9, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Deputy Judge D.E. Taylor
DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 2, 1999
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Cathy Chalifour
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada