" In my view, Ms. Ryan identified a business purpose with respect to all of the claims. The respondent did little to contradict Ms. Ryan’s testimony or the documentary evidence other than suggesting that her testimony was second-hand knowledge or guesswork. I believe that the appellant made out a prima facie case sufficient to demolish the minister’s assumptions (House v. the Queen, 2011 FCA 234, 2011 DTC 5142, at paragraph 61)."
What if you buy equipment for your spouse's business and the invoices show your name, not his or the business name? Can he still claim ITCs? Yes:
" Ms. Ryan testified that she bought the phone for the appellant. She clearly acted as the appellant’s agent in this, as she did in a variety of other respects, namely: keeping his books, issuing invoices to customers, paying his bills when required and helping to conduct his business.
" I am therefore of the view that Ms. Ryan acted as the duly authorized agent or representative of the appellant and that, this being so, her name appearing on the invoices does not bar the appellant from claiming ITCs with regard to these invoices (subparagraph 3(c)(ii) of the Regulations)."
The Court also looked at cases of independent truck operators working for a transport company and who use the transporter's credit cards for fuel and other purchases. Cases have found that the transport company is entitled to the GST/HST ITCs on fuel purchases and may have to collect GST on "resupplies" to the truck operators. Here, the Court concluded that, despite using the business credit card, the operator, McDavid, was the "recipient" of the purchased fuel and entitled to claim ITCs. (The Court put heavy weight on the fact that the CRA did not show that the transport company had tried to claim ITCs on the fuel bought by its independent truckers.)
See McDavid v. The Queen, 2014 TCC Lamarre