The taxpayer employed her two teenage children part-time in her custom window coverings business. In lieu of wages, the taxpayer would purchase luxury items for her household that she would not otherwise have purchased. Woods J. noted that Symes provides that s. 18(1)(h) does not apply to an expenditure laid out for the purpose of earning income. She stated (at para. 20):
Accordingly, if a taxpayer incurs an expense for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business, the deduction will not be prohibited pursuant to s. 18(1)(h) on the basis that it also has a personal benefit to the taxpayer.
Departing from Bradley, 2006 TCC 500 (Informal Procedure), Woods J. found that it was irrelevant that the taxpayer reserved the right to overrule her children on the luxury items purchased. She stated (at para. 23) that "I see nothing wrong with parents having a veto over expenditures made by their children."
Some of the taxpayer's purported expenses were denied, as the taxpayer's evidence was not wholly credible regarding which purchases were luxury item compensation for her children.