G.H. Glaubitz v. Her Majesty the Queen (Informal Procedure), [1994] 2 CTC 2448, 95 DTC 654

O'Connor J.T.C.C.:—This appeal was heard pursuant to the informal procedure of this Court, in Edmonton, Alberta on September 2, 1994 and relates to the appellant’s 1992 taxation year.

Issue

The only issue is whether the appellant is entitled to deduct moving expenses of $3,201 in the 1992 taxation year.

The relevant section of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act") is subsection 62(1) which, so far as material, reads as follows:

Where a taxpayer has, at any time, commenced

(a) to carry on a business or to be employed at a location in Canada (in this subsection referred to as his "new work location”),

and by reason thereof has moved from the residence in Canada at which, before the move, he ordinarily resided (in this section referred to as his “old residence") to a residence in Canada at which, after the move, he ordinarily resided (in this section referred to as his "new residence"), so that the distance between his old residence and his new work location is not less than 40 kilometres greater than the distance between his new residence and his new work location, in computing his income for the taxation year in which he moved from his old residence to his new residence or for the immediately following taxation year, there may be deducted amounts paid by him as or on account of moving expenses incurred in the course of moving from his old residence to his new residence, to the extent that.

The appellant, who was assisted in this appeal by a representative of H & R Block, who had prepared the appellant's income tax return, submitted that he does qualify for a deduction of moving expenses under said subsection 62(1).

The respondent, after establishing through cross-examination that the appellant worked at numerous work locations both before and after the move, i.e., in 1991 and 1992, submitted that the Appellant did not move from his old residence to his new residence in order to commence to be employed at a new work location.

The appellant was a member of the Boilermakers Local 146 (the "Union") which is located in Edmonton, Alberta and his work at various job sites in Alberta was secured with the referral assistance of the Union.

Sometime in January 1992 he moved from his former residence in Camrose, Alberta (the old residence) to a new residence in Edmonton, Alberta (the new residence). The appellant testified that in January 1992 he was unemployed and had recently been divorced from his wife. He stated that he wanted to move from their four-bedroom home which was no longer necessary. After the move to Edmonton, he continued to be unemployed for approximately three or four months. The appellant submitted that, even though he did not commence to work shortly after the move, the move enabled him to be closer to his source of employment, i.e., the Union.

The appellant submitted various certificates indicating that he had taken certain courses to upgrade his skills to better enable him to find work. This may be so but it appears that these courses were taken and certificates issued either late in 1993 or in 1994, i.e., not in 1992 and he moved in January 1992. In any event, improvement in job qualifications is not the same as commencing to work and I do not believe the appellant can succeed simply on the basis of the courses taken and the certificates obtained.

The respondent submitted that the present case was very similar to the case of Crampton v. M.N.R., [1980] C.T.C. 2269, 80 D.T.C. 1233. In that case an itinerant electrician worked for many years on a job-by-job basis in and about a large metropolitan area. He worked for each employer for brief periods of time before moving on to a new job. In 1976 he moved and sought to deduct the moving expenses from his income. The Tax Review Board, in dismissing the appeal, found that there was no real difference in the nature of the taxpayer’s employment or the location of the work sites before or after the move and accordingly the taxpayer did not qualify for the deduction under subsection 62(1). The decision in the Crampton case was based on facts remarkably similar to the facts of the present case.

Based on all of the testimony, it is abundantly clear that, although the taxpayer moved closer to his source of employment, he did not fall within the parameters of subsection 62(1), i.e., he did not move for the purpose of commencing to be employed at a new work location. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.