http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/66680/index.do 
Showers v. The Queen[1] (January 20, 2014) involved a claim for undocumented motor vehicle expenses and included a failure to correctly report reimbursements received from the taxpayer’s employer:
[3] In his income tax returns for the 2008 and 2009 taxation years, Mr. Showers claimed deductions in computing employment income for motor vehicle expenses in the amounts of $6,186 and $9,796.81, respectively. He also claimed related GST rebates. Reassessments were issued under the Income Tax Act which disallowed all these amounts.
[4] The problem that Mr. Showers has with respect to these claims is that the amounts claimed appear to be excessive and there is not sufficient reliable evidence to enable this Court to estimate what the proper amounts should be.
…
[6] With respect to particular aspects of the claim, Mr. Showers acknowledges that the kilometers driven for employment purposes that was reported on the Statement of Employment Expenses (T777) is inaccurate. He submits that the kilometers driven for employment purposes was correctly reported to his employer for purposes of receiving reimbursement at the rate of $0.38 per kilometer.
[7] Another problem that Mr. Showers has is that the tax returns do not correctly reflect the reimbursements received by the employer, which were not included in Mr. Showers’ income. For 2008, Mr. Showers under-reported the reimbursement and for 2009 no reimbursement was reported. The full reimbursements should have been subtracted from the expenses in accordance with the T777 form.
The court was not sympathetic to Mr. Showers’ arguments:
[14] In my view, this is not a case in which the Court should bend over backwards to help a taxpayer who is not able to prove his case due to lack of receipts. Mr. Showers acknowledges that the amounts claimed in his income tax returns are excessive. If the result in this appeal is that Mr. Showers is not given relief for expenses that have been incurred and were not reimbursed, he must bear the responsibility for permitting excessive claims to be made in his income tax returns.
[15] I would conclude that it is not appropriate for the Court to allow any of the motor vehicle expenses claimed by Mr. Showers, whether by way of deduction or GST rebate.
[16] The appeal will be allowed only with respect to the home renovation tax credit that was claimed for the 2009 taxation year.[2]
[1]2014 TCC 32.
[2] The home renovation tax credit was conceded by the Crown.