Gowtz,
T.C.J.
[Orally]:—This
is
an
appeal
by
the
appellant
with
respect
to
his
1984
taxation
year
whereby
in
that
year
he
sought
to
deduct
the
sum
of
$8,824
for
moving
expenses
which
he
had
carried
forward
from
his
1983
taxation
year
in
which
he
was
not
earning
an
income.
The
appellant’s
story
is
straightforward.
He
is
a
medical
doctor.
He
was
with
the
Canadian
Armed
Forces
for
quite
a
period
of
time,
ending
up
with
the
rank
of
colonel.
He
left
the
Armed
Forces
and
became
associated
with
the
Health
&
Welfare
Canada
and
spent
time
in
England,
Paris,
India
and
Africa.
In
December
1976
he
was
posted
to
London,
England,
where
he
stayed
until
April
of
1977
working
for
the
Canadian
Government
(Health
&
Welfare
Canada).
He
had
reached
the
age
of
65
and
became
employed
as
a
physician
at
Heathrow
Airport,
which
job
he
kept
until
he
decided
to
return
to
Canada
on
June
28,
1983.
It
is
the
expenses
of
the
cost
of
that
move
back
to
Canada
from
England
that
he
seeks
to
deduct
from
his
1984
income.
When
he
came
back
to
Canada
in
1983,
he
did
not
have
a
pre-arranged
job
in
Canada,
although
he
felt,
because
of
his
occupation,
he
would
readily
be
able
to
obtain
employment
or
provide
medical
services.
However,
his
wife
suffered
from
cancer
and,
as
he
says,
he
became
her
nurse
and
he
had
no
time
to
look
for
a
job.
Between
June
and
September
1983,
he
was
busy
renovating
a
home.
This
and
caring
for
his
wife
were
his
main
concern.
He
says
he
did
not
start
looking
for
work
until
April
1984,
and
he
admits
that
in
1983
he
had
no
employment
income.
The
question
then
is:
is
the
appellant
entitled
to
deduct
these
moving
expenses
in
light
of
the
facts
I
have
just
narrated?
The
appellant,
of
course,
states
that
he
is
entitled
to
them.
The
Crown,
on
the
other
hand,
in
its
reassessment
for
his
1984
taxation
year
has
disallowed
them.
The
section
under
which
the
appellant
seeks
to
make
the
deduction
is
subsection
62(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(“the
Act")
which
reads
as
follows:
62.(1)
Where
a
taxpayer
(a)
has,
at
any
time,
(i)
ceased
to
carry
on
business
or
to
be
employed
at
the
location
or
locations,
as
the
case
may
be,
in
Canada
at
which
he
ordinarily
so
carried
on
business
or
was
so
employed,
or
.
.
.
and
then
we
go
into
other
people
who
may
move,
mainly
students,
and
we
carry
on
with
that
section
with
these
words:
and
by
reason
thereof
has
moved
from
the
residence
in
Canada
at
which,
before
the
move,
he
ordinarily
resided
on
ordinary
working
days
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
his
“old
residence”)
to
a
residence
in
Canada
at
which,
after
the
move,
he
ordinarily
so
resided
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
his
“new
residence”),
When
the
appellant
returned
to
Canada,
he
had
decided
that
this
would
be
his
permanent
residence.
He
says
he
did
not
sojourn
here
in
1983
and
it
is
quite
clear
from
the
fact
that
this
was
not
a
sojourn
on
his
part
and
he
himself
said
that
he
does
not
feel
section
250
of
the
Act
applies
to
him.
If
section
250
of
the
Act
does
not
apply
to
him,
then
he
is
faced
with
provisions
of
section
114
of
the
Act
relating
to
individuals
resident
in
Canada
during
the
part
only
of
the
year
where
they
are
actually
resident
in
Canada.
That
section
is
not
actually
relevant
to
the
reassessment
but
it
shows
which
section
would
apply
to
him
under
the
circumstances
if
he
had
had
employment
in
1983,
where
we
are
dealing
with
1984,
and
he
seeks
to
carry
forward
the
moving
expenses
incurred
by
him
in
1983.
In
order
to
be
permitted
to
make
the
deduction
for
the
moving
expenses,
he
has
to
fit
within
section
62
of
the
Act
and
there
are
factors
in
this
case,
negative
factors,
which
I
feel
would
bring
him
outside
of
section
62
of
the
Act,
which
then
would
not
permit
him
to
make
the
deduction.
They
are
basically:
1.
He
did
not,
under
the
circumstances,
cease
to
be
employed
at
a
place
in
Canada;
2.
His
move
to
Canada
did
not
come
about
by
virtue
of
a
change
from
one
workplace
to
another
because
he
actually
did
not
seek
employment
until
April
1984;
and
3.
He
did
not
move
from
a
point
of
residence
or
working
place
within
Canada
to
another
location
in
Canada
where
he
would
take
up
employment.
In
that
the
appellant
fails
to
come
within
the
provisions
of
subsection
62(1)
of
the
Act,
on
the
basis
of
the
facts
as
adduced
before
me,
I
must
dismiss
the
appeal.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content