| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
business returns |
deductible expenses |
|
Summary:
Disallowing capital expenses, disallowing items for which details are not provided and disallowing amounts paid to restaurants because they appeared to be more of a personal or entertainment expenses rather than legitimate business operating expenses is correct. It is only the operating expenses of the business that are to be deducted from the gross revenues and the claimant has the obligation of proving that the amounts claimed fall into that category.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
week of unemployment |
earnings |
|
Summary:
Claimant appeals the Board's decision on the ground that the second decision (that allocating his self-employment earnings) should have been addressed within
the context of the first decison (whether he was engaged in self-employment that was not minor in extent). He characterizes the two stage procedure that has been followed as "double jeopardy". Umpire concluded that the two decisions are independent and the Board cannot be faulted for having treated them as such.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
week of unemployment |
incomes |
|
Summary:
Disallowing capital expenses, disallowing items for which details are not provided and disallowing amounts paid to restaurants because they appeared to be more of a personal or entertainment expenses rather than legitimate business operating expenses is correct. It is only the operating expenses of the business that are to be deducted from the gross revenues and the claimant has the obligation of proving that the amounts claimed fall into that category.
