Taylor,
T.C.C.J.:—This
is
an
appeal
heard
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
on
March
8,
1993,
under
the
informal
procedure
rules
of
the
Tax
Court.
The
issue
was
the
deductibility
of
an
amount
of
$3,804.08
as
travel
expenses
claimed
by
the
appellant
in
connection
with
her
employment
income.
The
position
of
the
respondent
was
that
she
"was
not
required"
by
her
employment
contract
to
pay
such
amounts
which
were
beyond
those
for
which
she
had
been
reimbursed,
according
to
paragraph
8(1)(h),
subsections
8(2)
and
(3)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act").
The
essence
of
the
appellant’s
argument
was
contained
in
her
final
comments
to
the
Court:
I
just
wish
to
say
that
when
I
accepted
the
position
in
Kentville,
Nova
Scotia,
it
was
definitely
a
condition
of
my
employment
that
I
have
a
vehicle
and
I
had
a
vehicle
in
good
condition
to
fulfil
those
obligations,
Your
Honour.
Thank
you.
In
my
view,
while
the
appellant
may
have
understood
that
as
a
"condition"
of
her
employment,
apparently
it
was
not
understood,
or
at
least
not
recognized
financially
as
an
obligation
by
her
employer.
If
it
was
so
recognized,
then
the
conclusion
must
be
that
both
parties
agreed
that
the
financial
consequences
of
such
an
understanding
would
be
borne
partially
by
the
taxpayer
generally,
and
I
have
never
been
convinced
that
this
third
party
(the
taxpayers)
can
or
should
become
automatically
responsible
for
the
results
of
such
an
agreement
to
which
the
general
body
of
taxpayers
has
not
been
a
party.
I
do
not
read
the
more
recent
judgments
on
that
point
to
lessen
the
impact
of
the
term
"required"
from
the
Act,
and
there
is
no
indication
from
the
facts
of
this
case,
that
the
appellant
was
required"
under
the
terms
of
her
employment
to
incur
the
expenses
claimed.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content