Drago v. The Queen, 2013 DTC 1226 [at at 1245], 2013 TCC 257 (Informal Procedure) -- summary under Improvements v. Repairs or Running Expense

By services, 28 November, 2015

In denying current deductions for $30,939 of the $36,939 costs of renovating two rental suites, Jorré J stated (at para. 23):

Although the quantum of expenses in itself does not prove anything, it could, for example, in comparison with a recent purchase price, be an indication that it was an improvement. ...

[That the taxpayer] spent almost $37,000 in addition to having worked between 30 and 40 hours a week for four months, a very large investment when compared with the purchase price of $75,000, is also an indication of improvements rather than mere repairs.

Topics and taglines
Topic
Income Tax Act - s. 18(1)(b) - Capital Expenditure v. Expense - Improvements v. Repairs or Running Expense
Tagline
relevance of quantum of expenses
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
335620
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Drago v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2013 DTC 1226 [at 1245], 2013 TCC 257 (Informal Procedure) <strong>[relevance of quantum of expenses]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}