Taylor,
T.C.J.:
—This
is
an
appeal
heard
in
Winnipeg,
Manitoba,
on
October
5,
1989
against
an
income
tax
assessment
for
the
year
1986
in
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
disallowed
the
deduction
of
moving
expenses.
The
critical
portion
of
the
notice
of
appeal
read:
Mr.
Beyette
had
a
change
in
job
location
in
December
of
1981.
It
was
his
intention
at
that
time
and
remained
his
intention
from
the
date
to
the
date
of
his
residence
move
of
October,
1986,
to
move
to
his
new
job
site.
He
had
engaged
a
realtor
to
locate
a
anew
home
at
the
new
job
site,
but
by
reasons
of
poor
supply
of
homes,
his
lack
of
equity
in
his
original
house,
high
interest
rates
in
1981
and
1982,
and
intermittent
health
problems,
the
actual
move
had
to
be
delayed.
The
reason
for
the
move
was
the
change
in
employment
location
and
no
other
(See
IT-178R2,
May
26,
1978,
paragraph
15).
In
response
thereto,
the
respondent
stated:
—
In
1981,
the
Appellant
resided
and
was
employed
in
Winnipeg,
Manitoba.
—*
In
December
1981,
the
Appellant
commenced
to
be
employed
at
a
new
work
location
in
Beausejour,
Manitoba.
—
From
December
1981
to
September
1986,
the
appellant
resided
in
Winnipeg
and
was
employed
in
Beausejour.
He
commuted
daily
a
distance
of
approximately
110
kilometres
round-trip.
—**
In
October
1986,
the
Appellant
moved
from
his
old
residence
in
Winnipeg
to
his
new
residence
in
Beausejour.
—
The
move
referred
to
in
paragraph
4(d)**
did
not
occur
by
reason
of
the
commencement
of
employment
at
the
new
location
referred
to
in
paragraph
4(b)*.
The
only
issue
raised
in
this
appeal,
is
whether,
all
other
conditions
being
met
(and
they
were)
the
taxpayer
is
entitled
to
the
deduction
claimed
for
moving
to
his
new
employment
site
in
1986,
from
his
old
employment
site
after
he
had
already
been
working
at
the
new
site
(commuting
daily)
for
the
intervening
five-year
period.
The
respondent's
assessment
explanation
read:
The
general
rule
is
that
you
may
deduct
moving
expenses
from
your
income
if
you
move
from
the
residence
you
ordinarily
live
in
to
commence
employment
at
a
new
location.
As
the
information
submitted
indicates
that
you
commuted
from
Winnipeg
to
Beausejour
for
several
years,
you
do
not
meet
the
above-mentioned
criteria.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
argued
that
subsection
62(1)
of
the
Act
implied
a
certain
time
limit—between
the
change
of
work
site
and
the
move
—and
that
five
years
was
unreasonable.
In
addition
the
critical
word
in
the
legislation
was
"commenced",
in
his
view
and
there
was
a
requirement
for
a
relationship
between
the
"commencement
of
employment"
and
the
"move".
I
do
not
agree
with
either
point
raised
by
the
respondent.
In
this
matter,
I
was
satisfied
from
the
evidence
and
testimony
that
there
were
good
reasons
for
which
the
taxpayer
delayed
his
move
from
Winnipeg
to
Beausejour—
illness,
lack
of
housing
in
Beausejour,
inactive
real
estate
selling
market
in
Winnipeg,
etc.
—but
that
is
probably
irrelevant.
In
my
opinion,
the
taxpayer
and
he
alone
is
left
to
determine
the
timing
of
the
move,
and
the
costs
associated
with
the
move,
and
no
time
limit
is
expressed
by
the
wording
of
the
Act.
While
clearly
five
years
is
an
unusually
long
period
of
time
between
the
change
of
work
locale
and
the
move,
that
cannot
be
put
in
issue—the
respondent
has
no
basis
upon
which
to
conclude
(IT
Bulletin
178R2)
that
there
is
some
time
frame
that
is
"reasonable"
and
another
that
is
unreasonable.
As
I
read
subsection
62(1)
of
the
Act,
it
is
a
requirement
that
the
taxpayer
"—has—commenced
to
be
employed
—
previous
to
the
move
for
which
an
expense
claim
is
made.
I
do
not
see
that
one
should
read
into
the
word
"commenced"
more
than
that.
Mr.
Beyette
"commenced
to
be
employed"
in
1981
at
the
new
work
location,
he
"moved"
in
1986
and
is
entitled
to
his
costs
of
moving.
The
appeal
is
allowed
and
the
matter
referred
back
to
the
respondent
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment.
The
appellant
is
entitled
to
party-and-
party
costs.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content