![]() ![]() |
![]() |
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 20001201 Docket: 1999-4802(IT)I
BETWEEN: MARIO PARADIS, Appellant, and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Agent for the Appellant: Robert Lendick Counsel for the Respondent: Mounes Ayadi
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (delivered orally from the bench on August 30, 2000, at Montréal, Quebec)
Dussault, J.T.C.C.
[1] I will now render my decision. I will not repeat what Mr. Ayadi said. However, I do agree with him. I have tried to express your point of view, Mr. Lendick, to be certain that the appellant understood it on his side. I have no evidence of a limited partnership or an undeclared partnership between the three people here, although I gave you ample opportunities to provide whatever evidence you may wish.
[2] I believe that a corporation was in fact created since it has a head office and a director. You have admitted that it opened a bank account and that transactions were made on the account. You have submitted documents concerning its financial performance. These are very brief records for the fiscal year of a corporation. Therefore, I shall not repeat everything that Mr. Ayadi said in citing all the sections of the Business Corporations Act. In my opinion, the evidence as a whole does not establish that business was carried on by a partnership, whether a general partnership or an undeclared partnership. Because even if there may be an oral agreement to that end, I have not been given the evidence for it, either in Mr. Paradis' testimony or in your own testimony, Mr. Lendick. I still believe that you are confusing the word "business". You give it a meaning that it does not necessarily have.
[3] Furthermore, with regard to the 1995 taxation year, the documents that you have submitted in evidence in no way correspond to what was claimed as a loss, and it is impossible to match this document with what was claimed as a loss in Mr. Paradis' return for the 1995 taxation year. The amount of $16,000 is, in my view, a figure that was provided for no reason. We do not know where it came from.
[4] With regard to the 1996 taxation year, in my opinion, the situation is even worse. Strictly speaking, there is nothing that makes it possible to think that a loss of $20,000 could have been incurred. Therefore, I must dismiss the appeals for the 1995 and 1996 taxation years.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 1st day of December 2000.
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true on this 26th day of February 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor |
SOURCE: http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2000/html/2000tcc19994802.html | Generated on 2003-04-29 |