Note:

There are very specif guidelines regarding employment expenses. One should not go down a dangerous road without a guide.

In this case, the conditions of employment did not indicate a need to incur expenses, there was no paper trail to prove a need for incurring the expenses, the T2200 form did not reflect the actual circumstances.

If you claim employment expenses have the situation appraised by a tax specialist.

Dan White

______

Category: Federal Income Tax/Court Decisions/Tax Court of Canad

Document Excerpt:

Fitzgerald v. The Queen (Informal Procedure), Tax Court of Canada, July 3, 2009. Neutral Citation: 2009 TCC 321. Court File No. 2008-2731(IT)I. Angers, J. Deductions - Employment-related expenses - The taxpayer was employed as a commissioned automobile salesperson. The taxpayer sought to deduct the accounting, legal, advertising, promotion, motor vehicle, supplies, parking, telephone, cell phone, workspace in home, and meals and entertainment expenses incurred during 2005 and 2006 (the “Expense Deductions”). In reassessing the taxpayer for 2005 and 2006, the Minister disallowed all of the Expense Deductions claimed - Appeal dismissed - The TCC concluded that: (a) the taxpayer was not ordinarily required to carry out his employment duties away from his employer’s place of business; (b) he was reimbursed by his employer for his employment-related expenses and was not required to pay these himself; (c) the T2200 Forms prepared by his employer were erroneous, unreliable, and of no assistance; and (d) as a result of the foregoing findings, he did not qualify under ss. 8(1)(f), 8(1)(h), 8(1)(h.1), 8(1)(i), 8(4), 8(10), or 8(13) of the Act for the Expense Deductions claimed. The Minister’s reassessments were affirmed accordingly - I.T.A. ss. 8(1)(f), 8(1)(h), 8(1)(h.1), 8(1)(i), 8(4), 8(10), 8(13).