[12] In the course of her submissions, the Appellant raised several issues which had not been pleaded but since no substantial objection was made on behalf of the Respondent, I propose to deal with them. First, the Appellant contends that business clothing expenses of $12,625 were claimed in what she said was "a sincere belief that their purchase was necessary to my professional image and thus to getting and keeping clients". She spoke of corporations sending their employees to image counsellors and said dressing for clients was of utmost importance in creating the requisite "power image" and that "a business suit for instance presents a corporate image of trust, security and stability, particularly important for the banking industry. That was the example they used. And the banking industry has often been my clients". Relying on Schedule II, Capital Cost Allowances, Class 12, items (i) and (k),[7] the Appellant now seeks the Court's approval to claim capital cost allowance with respect to the items of clothing because they were "uniforms required to obtain and keep contracts with my clients".
[13] The Appellant's argument that the clothing purchases should be treated as a capital cost item is totally without merit. There is no basis upon which her "outfits" could be considered as a "uniform". The items of clothing in issue were personal wear and were not solely necessary for her conduct of her business activities. Nor is there any evidence that she was required to use any of her clothing or accessories to appear on stage or in any related activity. Accordingly, her alternative claim with respect to the availability of these items for capital cost allowance must be rejected.