Misek v. Canada
(January 29, 2015 – 2015 FCA 24, Nöel CJ (Author), Dawson, Trudel JJA).
Précis: Mr. Misek ran a small water bottling business, Van Isle Artesian Springs. CRA assessed him for income from the business in the amounts of $10,957, $13,075 and $12,834 for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years respectively. He claimed expenses and capital cost allowance in the amounts of $10,493.10, $6,855.95 and $6,595.37, respectively. In the Tax Court he won all of his deduction claims, except for capital cost allowance which was reduced because of a dispute about the amount added to his depreciable property in 2003. He was also awarded costs of $500.00. The Tax Court praised Mr. Misek for his thorough and detailed analysis. Mr. Misek was not content however and appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The appeal was allowed, in part, on consent and referred back to the Minister to increase his capital cost allowance in all three taxation years. He was also awarded his disbursements which were set at $1,000. This is an example of a spirited taxpayer who simply would not roll over. Kudos to Mr. Misek.
Decision: Mr. Misek was substantially successful in the Tax Court in reducing the amounts of income allocated to his business, Van Isle Artesian Springs.
CRA assessed him for income from the business in the amounts of $10,957, $13,075 and $12,834 for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years respectively. He claimed expenses and capital cost allowance in the amounts of $10,493.10, $6,855.95 and $6,595.37, respectively. In the Tax Court he won all of his deduction claims, except for capital cost allowance which was reduced because of a dispute about the amount added to his depreciable property in 2003:
 The Respondent did not question the Appellant’s numbers in connection with the CCA other than an addition of $29,149 back in 2003 to Class 10: the Appellant only sought an addition of $9,798. This has the effect of reducing the additional CCA sought by the Appellant in 2007 from $4,114 to $2,422, in 2008 from $2,219 to $1,034 and in 2009 from $2,147 to $1,317. These reductions represent the difference between CCA calculated at the 30% rate on $9,799 rather than $29,149, as of 2003 (including a recognition of the 50% rule in 2003). In all other respects the Respondent simply relied on the above two bases for not including assets in Class 1 and Class 10. Given my finding, I accept the Appellant’s CCA deductions, subject only to the changes indicated above.
The Tax Court praised Mr. Misek for his thoroughness:
 Frank Misek presented as thorough and detailed analysis of the disputed expenses as I have seen in a case without counsel. His documents were well organized and extensive. He wished to go into some detail of the roadblocks and inappropriate treatment he believed he suffered at the hands of CRA officials. As I indicated to him, the Court is concerned only with the correctness of the assessment and therefore limited him to dealing with the real issues before the Court. It is regrettable that it was necessary to incur the time and expense to take this matter to trial. Frank Misek clearly has gone to considerable lengths to prove his position, which he has done. In these circumstances, I find it is in order to order a lump sum of costs in the amount of $500.
He was not content however with the decreased amounts of capital cost allowance and appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. His persistence paid off on January 29th of this year when his appeal was allowed in part on consent:
 On consent, the appeal is allowed in part from the bench and the matter is referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reassessment of the 2007, 2008 and 2009 Taxation Years on the basis that the appellant is entitled to the capital cost allowance deductions claimed in accordance with Column 13 of Chart 3.3, a copy of which is appended to the judgment.
He was also awarded his disbursements which the Federal Court of Appeal fixed at $1,000.