Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Tax Court allowed the appeal in part, denying most claimed employment expenses but leaving the conceded flyer-distribution deductions and cancelling subsection 163(2) penalties.
The Tax Court dismissed Robert Thorburn’s appeal from a 2014 reassessment, finding he failed to prove the business plan expense was required under his employment contract and paid in 2014.
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish the quantum of employment-related motor vehicle expenses and failed to demolish the Minister's assumptions; procedural fairness complaints were not established and s.138 did not oblige the judge to request further documents in an informal procedure appeal.
Source excerpt
Appeals dismissed: appellant is not within paragraph 8(1)(f) because his nursing duties did not involve selling or negotiating contracts; home office deductions fail because workspace was not the place where duties were principally performed for each employment and did not meet 8(13)(a)(ii); motor vehicle expense deductions are barred where reasonable allowances were excluded from income under s.6(1)(b) (ParaMed) but Spectrum's allowance omission from T4s meant s.6(1)(b) did not apply and motor vehicle expenses for Spectrum could be deductible; however appellant failed to prove quantum of eli…
Source excerpt
Employment expense claims for 2010 were denied due to the mandatory absence of a T2200 and lack of contemporaneous records and evidence of unreimbursed work travel; Darla Perron-Ali’s 2011 consulting expenses were not substantiated and denied; the payments to Tigrent for training/coaching were capital in nature but may qualify as eligible capital expenditure, permitting a permissive deduction up to $1,834.25 for the joint business in 2011 if the appellants request it; the 2012 rental loss for James Ali is allowed as conceded by the Respondent.
Source excerpt
Where the employer requires the employee to work from a home office and the employer does not provide appropriate office facilities at the employer's workplace, travel between that home office and the employer's place of business to perform employment duties constitutes travel 'in the course of the employment' under s.8(1)(h.1)(ii), and the claimed motor vehicle expenses are deductible.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to meet the evidentiary and substantiation requirements for deductible employment expenses: he did not produce contemporaneous mileage records or reliable documentation tying the Mercedes Benz to employment use, insurance records contradicted his primary-driver claim, and he failed to prove payment or entitlement for telemarketer expenses (T2200s indicated no requirement to employ substitutes).
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to rebut the Minister’s assumptions and did not produce sufficient documentary evidence to show the claimed employment expenses met the statutory requirements of section 8; the T2200 and documentary evidence did not establish that home office or travel was required by the employer nor that the $64,076 constituted an allowable employment expense under the Act.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to produce T2200 forms and did not make timely efforts to obtain them, and consequently did not satisfy the mandatory statutory precondition for claiming employment expenses; secondary factual deficiencies (no contractual obligation to pay many expenses, commuting/local meals not deductible, potential reimbursement) further confirm non‑deductibility.
Source excerpt
The Court found EP Canada was only a payroll service provider and the appellant worked for five distinct production company employers; the appellant failed to establish that her employment contracts required her to pay the claimed expenses or to demonstrate that it was impossible or that she exercised the high degree of diligence required to obtain T2200 forms from her actual employers; the record was insufficient to allocate and substantiate any deductible portion of travel, meal, telecommunications or supply expenses under s.8(1); accordingly the claimed employment expense deductions were n…
Source excerpt
Explore more
