Mahoney,
J.A.
(Hugessen
and
MacGuigan,
JJ.A.
concurring):—This
is
an
appeal
against
a
reported
judgment
of
the
Trial
Division
which
allowed
the
respondent's
appeal
against
the
disallowance
of
her
claim
for
$2,211.47
travelling
expenses
in
her
1980
income
tax
return.
The
respondent
is
a
Winnipeg
school
principal.
The
expenses
claimed
were
based
on
the
use
of
her
personal
automobile
to
carry
out
various
functions
which
the
learned
trial
judge
found
to
have
been
required
in
the
course
of
her
employment.
The
claim
was
based
on
paragraph
8(1)(h)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
8.
(1)
In
computing
a
taxpayer's
income
for
a
taxation
year
from
an
office
or
employment,
there
may
be
deducted
such
of
the
following
amounts
as
are
wholly
applicable
to
that
source
or
such
other
source
or
such
part
of
the
following
amounts
as
may
reasonably
be
regarded
as
applicable
thereto:
(h)
where
the
taxpayer,
in
the
year,
(i)
was
ordinarily
required
to
carry
on
the
duties
of
his
employment
away
from
his
employer's
place
of
business
or
in
different
places,
(ii)
under
the
contract
of
employment
was
required
to
pay
the
travelling
expenses
incurred
by
him
in
the
performance
of
the
duties
of
his
office
or
employment,
and
(iii)
was
not
in
receipt
of
an
allowance
for
travelling
expenses
that
was,
by
virtue
of
subparagraph
6(1)(b)(v),
(vi)
or
(vii),
not
included
in
computing
his
income
and
did
not
claim
any
deduction
for
the
year
under
paragraph
(e),
(f)
or
(g),
amounts
ended
by
him
in
the
year
for
travelling
in
the
course
of
his
employment;
The
findings
of
fact
by
the
learned
trial
judge
are
well
supported
by
the
evidence
and,
with
a
single
exception,
I
am
not
persuaded
that
he
erred
in
applying
the
law
to
those
facts.
The
expenses
designated
as
Group
"A",
involving
608
of
a
total
of
7,026
kilometres
travelled,
as
found
by
the
learned
trial
judge,
relate
to
meetings
held
at
the
respondent's
school
in
the
evenings.
Travel
between
home
and
her
school,
even
though
outside
regular
hours
of
work,
was
not
in
fulfilment
of
a
requirement
to
carry
on
her
duties
"away
from
her
employer's
place
of
business
or
in
different
places"
as
required
by
paragraph
8(1)(h).
The
appeal
should
be
allowed
to
that
extent
and
otherwise
dismissed
with
costs
as
between
solicitor
and
client
since
the
amount
of
tax
in
controversy
is
well
below
the
limit
fixed
by
paragraph
178(2)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Pursuant
to
subparagraph
177(b)(iv),
the
respondent's
1980
income
tax
assessment
will
be
referred
back
to
the
Minister
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment
on
the
basis
that
the
travelling
expenses
claimed
by
the
respondent,
except
those
in
Group
“A”,
were
within
the
deduction
allowed
by
paragraph
8(1)(h).
Appeal
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content