Norris v. The Queen (December 11, 2017 – 2017 TCC 236, Paris J.).
Précis: Mr. Norris was assessed for shareholder benefits in respect of amounts he received from his operating corporation:
 These are appeals in the informal procedure from reassessments of the Appellant’s 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 taxation years. The Appellant is disputing the inclusion of amounts in his income in those years as shareholder benefits received from his corporation “Golden Hinde Cable Services Ltd.” (the “Corporation”). The amount included as shareholder benefits was $63,808 in 2005, $50,887 in 2006, $51,524 in 2007 and $30,730 in 2008.
He argued that the amounts were reimbursements of expenses incurred by him on behalf of the corporation. The Tax Court rejected his evidence and dismissed the appeal apart from some small concessions made by the Crown. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: The Court simply did not accept the taxpayer’s explanation of the amounts at issue:
 In an appeal of a reassessment of tax, the taxpayer bears the onus of showing that the assumptions of fact made by the Minister in making the reassessment are incorrect.
 I find that the Appellant has not met that onus. His testimony concerning the alleged business expenses was vague and perfunctory. His evidence consisted largely of general, self-serving assertions that the amounts in issue were received by him as repayments of expenses he incurred on behalf of the Corporation, and excuses for his lack of preparation for the hearing. He did not provide any documents whatsoever to support his claim that the amounts in issue were reimbursements of expenses of the Corporation that he had paid. I also question the overall reliability of the Appellant’s testimony, given that his complaints about not having been provided an explanation of the reassessments and a copy of the audit working papers in a timely fashion were clearly refuted by the appeals officer. Her testimony was corroborated by a letter she sent to the Appellant, a copy of which was produced at the hearing, and I accept her testimony.
 In my view, the comments of the Federal Court of Appeal in the case of Njenga v. Canada,  F.C.J. No. 1218 (QL) at paragraphs 3 and 4 are applicable here:
3 The income tax system is based on self monitoring. As a public policy matter the burden of proof of deductions and claims properly rests with the taxpayer. The Tax Court Judge held that persons such as the Appellant must maintain and have available detailed information and documentation in support of the claims they make. We agree with that finding. Ms. Njenga as the Taxpayer is responsible for documenting her own personal affairs in a reasonable manner. Self written receipts and assertion without proof are not sufficient.
4 The problem of insufficient documentation is further compounded by the fact that the Trial Judge, who is the assessor of credibility, found the applicant to be lacking in this regard.
 At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent conceded that the amounts assessed to the Appellant should be reduced by $375 in his 2006 taxation year, $316 in his 2007 taxation year, and $651 in his 2008 taxation year, based on additional information provided by the Appellant. The appeals are therefore allowed in part to reflect those concessions.
Thus the Tax Court rejected his evidence and dismissed the appeal apart from some small concessions made by the Crown. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.