Yu v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer simply did not offer credible evidence of disputed business and rental property expenses

Yu v. R. – TCC:  Taxpayer simply did not offer credible evidence of disputed business and rental property expenses


Yu v. The Queen (June 20, 2018 – 2018 TCC 114, Boyle J.).

Précis:   The taxpayer had an odd assortment of expenses disallowed including fees defending a criminal charge.  She showed up in Court without any substantial documentary evidence to support the disputed claims and the Court dismissed her appeal without costs (as this was an informal procedure appeal).

Decision:   Justice Boyle summarized his difficulty in allowing the appeal succinctly:

[9]  At the October 2017 hearing in Victoria, the Appellant provided testimony that was of a broad and general nature and lacking in details, and that focused almost entirely upon the legal expenses. The only amounts given to the Court were that legal expenses in respect of the criminal charges were more than $50,000 and, in respect of the child custody and protection matter, were more than $20,000. There was nothing to support these amounts by way of records of the law firm, banking records, cheques or anything similar, nor was it clear that different counsel attended to the two distinct matters rendering allocation of the legal expenses unnecessary. The only other amount described in the Appellant’s testimony was $29,000 payable as the interest differential penalty upon the refinancing of one of the rental properties. No documentation from the bank relating to the original refinancing of the property, the refinancing giving rise to the penalty, a mortgage statement of any sort, or any like evidence was provided to the Court. In short, the Court has been provided nothing to corroborate the testimony of the Appellant on even these two expenses which she did try to describe.

[10]  This appeal must be dismissed because the Appellant has quite simply failed to discharge the onus on her to satisfy the Court with sufficient understandable and credible evidence to establish that any of the expenses in issue were incurred or related to either her business or her rental income generating activities. It would be fair to say that the Appellant did not so much as put a dent in, much less demolish, any of the Respondent’s assumptions set out in paragraph 14 of the reply to the notice of appeal.

Thus the appeal, which was in the informal procedure, was dismissed without costs.