Tax – Income Tax – Employment income
In 2014 and 2015, taxpayer was employed by company that sold point of sale business devices. Accused was responsible for marketing devices within region of southern Alberta and travelled for work by automobile, using two of three vehicles he co-owned with spouse. Taxpayer claimed he hired telemarketers from time to time to assist him in contacting potential clients by telephone. For 2014 and 2015 taxation years, accused claimed vehicle expenses for Mercedes and second vehicle and amounts paid to telemarketers as employment expenses. Minister reassessed taxpayer for 2014 and 2015 taxation years and disallowed employment expenses in relation to Mercedes and remuneration paid to telemarketers. Taxpayer appealed. Appeal dismissed. Taxpayer’s evidence was insufficiently detailed and was non-comprehensive to allow claim for deduction of employment-related motor vehicle expenses pertaining to use of Mercedes. While taxpayer may have substantially or primarily driven Mercedes, there was dearth of contemporaneous records evidencing distances and destinations of employment-related driving as opposed to other driving. Maintenance documentation showing taxpayer’s name as customer did not establish more than fact that taxpayer rather than his spouse tended to take Mercedes in for servicing and insurance documentation showed taxpayer’s spouse as primary driver. With respect to telemarketing expenses, there was lack of probative evidence as to how much was paid, who was paid and when.
Galvis v. The Queen (2020), 2020 CarswellNat 203, 2020 TCC 20, B. Russell J. (T.C.C. [Informal Procedure]).
Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca
