https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/460705/index.do
Galvis v. The Queen (February 14, 2020 – 2020 TCC 20, Russell J.).
Précis: The taxpayer (referred to in the decision as MG) claimed deductions for expenses in connection with a Mercedes Benz used by him in his work in 2014 and 2015 (he had been previously allowed motor vehicle expenses in connection with another car, a Nissan, operated by him). He also claimed amounts paid to “telemarketers” in connection with the sales activities. The Tax Court found that the taxpayer had not met the evidentiary onus necessary to support either category of expenses. The appeal was dismissed without costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: The Court simply did not accept the taxpayer’s evidence as sufficient to justify the expenses at issue:
[11] I find that MG’s evidence was insufficiently detailed and was non-comprehensive, including particularly as to documentation, to allow his claim for deduction of employment - related motor vehicle expenses pertaining to use of the 2011 Benz. He seemed to place reliance on the fact that he was an owner of that vehicle, so as to establish him as its primary user, notwithstanding that that vehicle’s purchase documentation showed that he and his spouse were co-owners of that vehicle. It may have been that he did substantially or primarily drive it but there remains an unfortunate dearth of contemporaneous records evidencing distances and destinations of employment-related driving as opposed to other driving. The maintenance documentation showing his name as customer does not establish more than the fact that he rather than his spouse tended to take that car in for servicing. The insurance documentation shows, for each of the two years in issue, his spouse as being the primary driver. In short, MG has not provided an adequate evidentiary basis to support a determination as to any particular amount of expenses that could be allowed in respect of operation of the 2011 Benz in conjunction with his employment work.
[12] I turn now to the other issue, being denial of any deduction for amounts paid to persons MG called “telemarketers”, that he said he had hired to assist him in contacting by telephone potential clients and referral entities. MG testified that from time to time throughout a year he would hire a few such persons (referencing in particular his 17 year old baby-sitter), to come to his house each day and make a series of calls as one aspect of his overall sales efforts. Further, MG tended to pay them mostly with Walmart $100 gift coupons - as he opined that these young persons would or might tend to wastefully spend actual currency paid to them.
[13] Once again there was a serious lack of probative evidence as to how much they were paid, who was paid, and when. No receipts or invoices were submitted in evidence. No payroll documentation was put in evidence. No one else including any of these purportedly hired persons was called to testify regarding this.
[14] In short, proof of actual payment of the claimed amounts in this regard was not sufficiently if at all established, through contemporaneous documentation or otherwise. Furthermore, the two subsection aforementioned Form T2200s each stipulated that MG’s contract of employment, “did not require him or her to...employ a substitute or assistant”.
The appeal was dismissed without costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.