http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71773/index.do 
Tulman v. The Queen (May 9, 2014 – 2014 TCC 140) was a case involving a taxpayer claiming $24,120 in travel and entertainment expenses for a trip to Las Vegas over the Easter weekend in 2011.
The taxpayer only produced limited documentation of the expenses and what he did produce did not further his case:
[11] During cross-examination, the appellant acknowledged that the hotel bill, totalling $6,179, is for the five-day trip to Las Vegas commencing on April 20, 2011 immediately before the Easter long weekend. The bill includes charges for the room, movies, spa, laundry, restaurants, in-room dining and eight charges for the mini bar during his stay. He said that he was not with his wife. When questioned as to the expenses relating to one of the restaurants, the Wazuzu which he had attended three times, he said that he did not recall how many people were with him or who accompanied him.
[12] He also acknowledged that the lounge bill, totalling $2,786, was for what he described as a social gathering with four other people at the lounge. The bill includes two bottles of Veuve ($790), a bottle of Patron Silv. tequila ($425), a Carafe ($65), six smart water ($54), six Corona beer ($54) and one bottle of Dom Perignon ($795). He said that two people from Ricon were at the gathering. When asked by counsel for the respondent as to whether he had agendas, calendars or other documentation to corroborate the meetings, he said that he had lost access to emails and calendars as it was Google-based.
[Footnotes omitted]
Mr. Tulman had been previously audited for employment expenses and he was aware of the need for proper documentation. The court concluded that he had not established that the expenses were other than personal expenses:
[22] Apart from the hotel and lounge bills, produced by counsel for the respondent, the appellant did not provide any other bills or details in support of the remaining part of the Amount. The hotel and lounge bills, $6,179 and $2,786, respectively, show charges for a hotel room, movies, spa, laundry, restaurants, in-room dining, eight charges for the mini-bar items, beverages and alcohol. When questioned as to who accompanied him and how many people were present at the Wazuzu restaurant, he said that he did not recall. This paucity of detail is a concern especially since the appellant was aware, since at least 2008, of the need to be able to substantiate claims for travel expenses.
[23] Considering the inconsistency in his testimony as to the Convention, the timing of the trip over the Easter long weekend, and the nature of the expenses reflected on the two bills, and considering the appellant’s generalized statements in his evidence without any documentary evidence and very little detail relating to meetings or activities during his trip, on the balance of probabilities, I find that the Amount comprises personal expenses.
Moreover the court found that Mr. Tulman did not earn commission income and would therefore not have been entitled to the deductions in any event.
The appeal was dismissed.