Raymond J Lemieux v. Minister of National Revenue, [1982] CTC 2018, 82 DTC 1039

D E Taylor [TRANSLATION]:—This appeal was heard at Montreal, Quebec on November 17, 1980, and was brought from income tax assessments for 1977, in which the Minister of National Revenue refused the taxpayer the following deductions:

In making the assessment of the appellant, the respondent relied, inter alia, on section 3, paragraph 8(1 )(i), subsections 8(2), 8(5), paragraphs 60(e) and 110(1 )(g) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63, as amended.

With regard to the first amount ($1,097.35), the appellant noted the following in his notice of objection:

I feel that the present case merits special consideration: it is quite true that this course only ran from May 9 to June 3, 1977; however, as appears in the course program, a copy of which is attached, this was an accelerated course in which the student was present for a total of 155 hours in four weeks, for the simple reason that it was taken by students from twelve countries throughout the world, and it therefore had to be as condensed as possible so that it could be available to the greatest number of foreign students (see attached list of students).

If we consider the fact that the University of Montreal gives the status of full-time student to anyone taking fifteen course hours a week, we get a total number per session of 225 course hours spread over an average of fifteen weeks. I feel that it is only fair that I should not be penalized by the Income Tax Act for taking in record time a course which, in normal circumstances, would have lasted over twice as long. As paragraph 15 of the said Interpretation Bulletin IT-82R provides that “a deduction for tuition fees paid will not be denied simply because . . . a particular academic term falls a little short of being a full 13 weeks”, I am asking if you would kindly reconsider your decision on this matter in light of the reasons given in my request, and I look forward to receiving a reversal in my favour.

In the foregoing citation, the appellant omitted a very crucial part of the sentence in Bulletin IT-82R. The complete sentence reads as follows:

However, a deduction for tuition fees paid will not be denied simply because a student taking such a course drops out after, say one term or one year, or because a particular academic term falls a little short of being a full 13 weeks or is broken, for example, by Easter holidays. (My italics.)

A “term” is not equivalent to a “course” within the meaning of this citation. The Act therefore does not allow the deduction claimed.

With regard to the second amount, and in particular the items for $5 and $30, the evidence presented at the hearing confirmed that the appellant paid them not to preserve his status as a resident physician, but because they provided him with medical information. The appellant’s explanation of the item for $200 is simply:

The amount of two hundred dollars ($200) paid to the Canadian Medical Protective Association represents the cost of professional liability insurance which is essential to the practice of my profession.

In this regard, the respondent’s argument was that the amount of $200 does not constitute “annual professional membership dues the payment of which was necessary to maintain a professional status recognized by statute” (paragraph 8(1 )(i) because it was “insurance” (subsection 8(5)). I accept this argument.

Decision

For all these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.