Date: 19981027
Docket: A-48-97
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 27th DAY OF OCTOBER 1998
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU
THE HONOURABLE DEPUTY JUSTICE CHEVALIER
BETWEEN:
LUC DIONNE
Appellant
AND:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
The appeal is dismissed without costs.
Robert Décary
J.A.
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
Date: 19981027
Docket: A-48-97
Coram: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CHEVALIER D.J.
Between:
LUC DIONNE
Appellant
AND
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on Tuesday, October 27, 1998
Judgment delivered at Montréal, Quebec on Tuesday, October 27, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 19981027
Docket: A-48-97
Coram: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CHEVALIER D.J.
Between:
LUC DIONNE
Appellant
AND
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] This appeal raises the issue of the taxation of the amounts an employee residing in a northern zone receives as reimbursement for the costs of transporting food that cannot be purchased locally. The judge of the Tax Court of Canada concluded that these amounts were a taxable "benefit" within the meaning of paragraph 6(1)(a ) of the Income Tax Act.
[2] A few months before the judgment impugned in the case at bar, there was a similar decision on this issue by Judge Dussault in Leduc (Succession de) v. R., [1996] 1 C.T.C. 2873, and in our view, the reasons for that decision are compelling.
[3] Relying on the recent decision of this Court in Guay v. The Queen, [1997] 216 N.R. 101 (F.C.A.) the appellant argued that reimbursing the costs of transporting food was not a taxable benefit within the meaning of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. This decision is of no assistance in the case at bar. That case involved the extraordinary expenses which rotational employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade incurred to ensure their children would be educated in Canada in a manner consistent with the education available during their overseas posting. Furthermore, those employees received no tax relief similar to that available to residents of northern zones under section 110.7 of the Income Tax Act.
[4] If the allowable deduction under the Act, or the salaries, allowances and bonuses granted by employers, are insufficient, it is up to Parliament and the parties involved to change them, not the courts.
[5] In the particular circumstances of this matter, we are of the view that this is not a case for costs.
[6] The appeal will be dismissed.
Robert Décary
J.A.
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Date: 19981027
Docket: A-48-97
Between:
LUC DIONNE
Appellant
AND
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-48-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: LUC DIONNE
Appellant
AND
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 27, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU AND THE HONOURABLE DEPUTY JUSTICE CHEVALIER)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Décary
Dated: October 27, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Pierre Grenier for the appellant
Marie Bélanger for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Melançon, Marceau, Grenier & Sciortino |
Montréal, Quebec for the appellant
Morris Rosenberg
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
| Ottawa, Ontario for the respondent |
Email this Content