Précis: The taxpayer and his wife agreed to supervise the construction and decoration of a new home for a couple of wealthy doctors. The evidence was that each was paid a flat fee of $75,000 payable at a rate of $25,000 per year over three years. Counsel for CRA argued that the Court should not accept the parol evidence of the taxpayer and his clients and should rather look to the documentation which supported the Crown’s argument that the taxpayer was a general contractor and purchased supplies for his own account.
The Court rejected that Crown’s argument, accepted the evidence of Mr. Anand and allowed the appeal, vacating the assessment. Costs were awarded to Mr. Anand.
Anand v. R. – TCC: Tax Court accepted parol evidence that the appellant was a project manager, not a general contractor – therefore, on the facts, a small supplier exempt from GST/HSTREAD MORE »