[1] The Appellant appeals from the judgment of the Tax Court which dismissed his appeal with respect to his claim for interest expenses in the 1994 and 1995 years relating to the development of real estate.

[2] The Tax Court Judge allowed certain of the expenses but disallowed the bulk of the expenses because he was unable to conclude on the evidence before him that the monies allegedly spent on the project were in fact spent for this purpose. The Tax Court Judge found that the Appellant had failed to keep proper records from which his borrowing, the application of the borrowed funds, and the payment of interest in respect of those borrowings could be demonstrated. The Tax Court Judge found that the oral evidence of the Appellant was not sufficiently reliable.

[3] The Tax Court Judge was in a much better position than this Court to assess the voluminous and confusing evidence before him.

[4] We have not been persuaded that the Tax Court Judge erred by applying the wrong legal test or that he misinterpreted paragraph 20(1)c of the Income Tax Act.

[5] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

"J. E. Sexton"

J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-400-02

STYLE OF CAUSE: JEFFREY WHITE

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 16, 2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT : STONE J.A.

SEXTON J.A.

SHARLOW J.A.

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH

ON DECEMBER 16, 2003 BY: SEXTON J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Douglas Langley FOR THE APPELLANT

Mr. Bobby Sood FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Douglas Langley

Markham, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT

You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.

Do not display this message anymore