Beaubier,
T.C.C.J.:—This
matter
was
heard
in
Ottawa
on
March
30,
1993.
It
is
an
appeal
pursuant
to
the
old
procedure
of
this
Court.
The
appellant
testified
and
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
called
Claudio
Direnzo,
an
employee
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
as
a
witness.
In
1986
the
appellant
claimed
moving
expenses
of
$19,578;
these
were
disallowed
on
the
basis
that
the
distance
moved
by
the
appellant
pursuant
to
section
62
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act")
did
not
amount
to
40
kilometres
or
more
"as
the
crow
flies".
The
appellant
appealed.
The
appellant
moved
from
north
of
Aylmer
in
the
Province
of
Quebec
across
the
Ottawa
River
to
Kars,
Ontario,
where
he
commenced
business.
The
only
dispute
between
the
parties
is
whether
the
measurement
should
be
done
"as
the
crow
flies”.
Three
cases
of
this
Court
say
the
measurement
pursuant
to
section
62
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
should
be
"as
the
crow
flies’.
They
are:
Haines
v.
M.N.R.,
[1984]
C.T.C.
2422,
84
D.T.C.
1375;
Bracken
v.
M.N.R.,
[1984]
C.T.C.
2922,
84
D.T.C.
1813;
Bernier
Estate
v.
M.N.R.,
[1990]
1
C.T.C.
2535,
90
D.T.C.
1220.
Section
62
does
not
describe
the
distance
travelled
or
moved.
Rather,
the
measurement
is:
.
.
.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.
The
appellant
measured
the
shortest
distance
by
road
and
it
is
greater
than
40
kilometres.
However,
the
distance
measured
in
a
straight
line
"as
the
crow
flies”
is
less
than
40
kilometres.
That
is,
in
the
phraseology
reflecting
both
instances,
in
the
clear
words
of
the
Income
Tax
Act:
..
.the
distance
between
his.
.
.residence
and
his
new
work
location
In
these
circumstances,
the
measurement
system
adopted
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
is
correct,
based
as
it
is
upon
the
words
of
the
Act.
The
appeal
is
dismissed
by
this
Court.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content