In Bykov v. Canada (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a Tax Court appeal, here from an order which disallowed "additional deductions for motor vehicle expenses incurred by the appellant in connection with employment".
The court considered the evidentiary issue that judges "must presume the assumptions [SS: 'made by the Minister'] are true unless they are demolished by the appellant", here versus viva voce evidence from the appellant that he had "kept records and logbooks that were provided to the Canada Revenue Agency" which substantiated travel expenses which could be deducted from employment income:
[8] The Tax Court determined that this evidence was insufficient because it does not challenge the assumptions made by the Minister. It is well established that the judge must presume the assumptions are true unless they are demolished by the appellant. The Tax Court concluded that the evidence "“fail[s] to satisfy the burden of proof placed on the Appellant to establish to a balance of probabilities the facts that show the Reassessments to be wrong”" (Tax Court reasons at para. 74).
[9] The appellant submits that this conclusion is inconsistent with the Tax Court judge’s finding at the beginning of the reasons that the appellant was a credible witness. I do not agree with this submission. It appears from the Tax Court’s reasons that the judge had some sympathy for the appellant. However, it was not a matter of disbelieving him; it was a matter of the appellant failing to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the amounts claimed were in fact deductible.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
