[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
1999-3505(IT)I
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE H. SAUVAGEAU,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on July 14, 2000, at Sherbrooke,
Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge Pierre Archambault
Appearances
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Anne-Marie Desgens
JUDGMENT
The
appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act
for the 1997 taxation year is dismissed, without costs.
Signed at Magog, Quebec, this 20th day of July 2000.
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 30th day of September 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 20010123
Docket: 1999-3505(IT)I
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE H. SAUVAGEAU,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Archambault, J.T.C.C.
[1] Claude Sauvageau appealed from an
assessment made by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister)
for the 1997 taxation year. The Minister disallowed the deduction
in the amount of $11,941 that Mr. Sauvageau made in
computing his income.
[2] He also disallowed the deduction
of part of the contribution made by Mr. Sauvageau to his
Registered Retirement Savings Plan. The deduction claimed was
$2,890 whereas the Minister allowed only $927. During the
hearing, Mr. Sauvageau acknowledged that the deduction of
this amount had been allowed under the provisions of the
Income Tax Act (the Act) and that his objection was
aimed more at having the Act amended. In fact, it is quite clear
that this Court has no power to amend the Act; only the
Parliament of Canada can do that.
[3] There remains the question of the
deduction of $11,941. At the beginning of the hearing,
Mr. Sauvageau made several admissions¾he admitted,
inter alia, subparagraphs 7(b), (c) and (f) of the Reply
to the Notice of Appeal. The evidence made it possible to confirm
the fact that Mr. Sauvageau held the position of inspector
with the Commission de la construction du
Québec (CCQ) until May 4, 1997, and that his duties
lead him to travel constantly between one construction site and
another. Beginning on May 5, 1997, his duties changed: he was
demoted and assigned to the duties of an operations technician,
duties that he performed in the Montreal regional office.
[4] Because of this new assignment,
Mr. Sauvageau lost all right to the travel and meal allowances
that he had received when performing his duties as an
inspector.
[5] As an operations technician,
Mr. Sauvageau was no longer required to perform his duties
anywhere but at his employer's place of business. The evidence
revealed that the travelling Mr. Sauvageau did was essentially
restricted to commuting between his place of residence in
Knowlton and the Montréal regional office, located at the
intersection of Crémazie Boulevard and
Christophe-Colomb Avenue.
[6] Mr. Sauvageau explained
during his testimony that he had deducted the amount of $11,941,
representing the sum of the two amounts that he would have
received if he had performed the duties of an inspector and had
regularly visited the various construction sites. The first
amount, $1,617, represents the meal allowance ($12.35 per day) to
which he was entitled for 131 days of work. The second, $10,324,
represents the allowance ($0.34 per kilometre) that he would
have received if he had driven 30,365 kilometres in his
car.
[7] Mr. Sauvageau filed a
grievance against his employer challenging the demotion that he
had been given on May 5, 1997. The grievance has not yet been
settled and new hearing sessions are planned in the months to
come.
Analysis
[8] When the evidence as a whole is
considered, it is clear that the amount deducted by
Mr. Sauvageau represents not the expenses he incurred but
rather a "failure to earn", that is, the amount that he would
have received if his duties had been those of an inspector and he
had visited the various construction sites under the CCQ's
jurisdiction.
[9] Subsection 8(2) of the Act
explicitly provides that only amounts provided for in section 8
are deductible in computing income from employment.
Mr. Sauvageau, however, was unable to refer to any explicit
provision of the Act (whether it be one of the paragraphs of
section 8 or another section) that might allow him to deduct such
a "failure to earn".
[10] Moreover, even if the amount of $11,941
represented the travel expenses that Mr. Sauvageau had to incur
for commuting between his residence and his workplace, that is,
the Montréal regional office, and the expenses for meals
taken near this workplace, such expenses clearly constituted
personal expenses and not expenses incurred "in the performance
of the duties of his employment" (see, inter alia,
paragraph 8(1)(h) of the Act).Regrettably for Mr.
Sauvageau, the assessment of the Minister is well founded and his
appeal in respect of the 1997 taxation year must be
dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 23d day of January 2001.
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 30th day of September 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
Email this Content