Recent Posts

• 

  Hamilton v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer entitled to non-taxable overtime meal allowance at remote work site but not the costs of transportation from an intermediary location

  Mar 27, 2020 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: The taxpayer was employed on remote, mostly northern, work sites and at issue was the taxation of certain meal and travel allowances paid to him by his employer. The Tax Court found that the overtime meal allowance was not taxable but the travel allowance was since it was not an allowance for travel to a remote work site from the taxpayer’s principal residence.
  Hamilton v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer entitled to non-taxable overtime meal allowance at remote work site but not the costs of transportation from an intermediary location READ MORE »
• 

  Tilahun v. R. – TCC: Additional automobile expenses disallowed – a portion (50%) of cell phone expenses allowed

  Jul 11, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: The taxpayer worked in construction and was required to report to various work sites. He received a fixed automobile allowance from his employer which filed a Form 2200 stating that the employee was required to pay any other expenses. The taxpayer claimed additional automobile expenses in excess of the allowance and cell phone expense (which his employer did not reimburse). The Tax Court disallowed the additional automobile expense claim but allowed 50% of the cell phone expenses (which the Crown conceded). There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
  Tilahun v. R. – TCC: Additional automobile expenses disallowed – a portion (50%) of cell phone expenses allowedREAD MORE »
• 

  Chao v. R. – TCC: Employment expenses of $1,149 denied, Crown to pay $200 in costs for Reply amended shortly before trial

  Jun 05, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: The taxpayer claimed $1,149 in employment expenses in 2010. The Court disallowed them because they did not qualify for deduction and no forms T2200 had been submitted by the taxpayer showing that the expenses were conditions of employment (nor had she taken steps to obtain such forms). Nevertheless the Court awarded $200 in costs to the taxpayer since the Crown had amended its Reply only a week before trial. The taxpayer was allowed a GST rebate of $277.46 based on an admission by the Crown.
  Chao v. R. – TCC: Employment expenses of $1,149 denied, Crown to pay $200 in costs for Reply amended shortly before trialREAD MORE »
• 

  Barry v. R. – FCA: Taxpayer denied the deduction of motor vehicle and cell phone expenses and related GST/HST rebates

  Dec 04, 2014 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Commodity Tax
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  
  Barry v. R. – FCA: Taxpayer denied the deduction of motor vehicle and cell phone expenses and related GST/HST rebatesREAD MORE »
• 

  Steubing v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer allowed very limited employment expense deductions

  Aug 13, 2014 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  
  Steubing v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer allowed very limited employment expense deductionsREAD MORE »