John
B
Goetz
[ORALLY]:—I
might
point
out
Mr
Midyette,
that
I
have
carefully
examined
the
material
in
the
file
that
was
handed
to
me,
your
notice
of
appeal
as
well
as
the
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal,
and
your
appeal
relates
to
your
1978
taxation
year.
On
January
1
of
that
year,
you
moved
with
your
family
to
Australia
on
an
international
teaching
fellowship
award
and
returned
at
the
end
of
December
1978.
You
remained
a
resident
of
Canada
you
stated,
you
retained
ownership
of
your
present
home,
you
retained
your
membership
in
the
Calgary
Winter
Club,
and
your
salary
was
paid
during
1978
by
the
Calgary
Board
of
Education,
with
whom
you
were
employed,
and
being
an
employee
—
and
I
might
add
a
servant
of
the
Calgary
Board
of
Education
—
it
was
their
responsibility
to
pay
you.
For
you
to
claim
the
moving
expenses
you
must
come
strictly
within
the
provisions
of
section
62
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
On
reading
that
section
it
seems
to
contemplate
a
move
from
one
permanent
residence
in
Canada
to
a
new
permanent
residence
in
Canada.
You
had
the
unique
argument
of
saying,
“Well,
I
am
a
deemed
resident
because
of
the
provisions
of
section
250
.
.
and
that
under
subparagraph
250(1
)(c)(ii)
you
are
a
servant
of
the
Province,
and
it
is
with
those
words
that
you
seek
to
bring
yourself
within
the
meaning
of
section
62,
which
is
quite
clear.
The
documentation
which
you
filed
certainly
is
indicative
of
the
fact
that
you
were
a
worthy
person
and
one
that
the
province
of
Alberta
obviously
would
be
proud
to
set
up
as
an
example
of
the
teaching
ability
of
its
teachers
and
those
persons
teaching
in
this
province
of
Alberta.
But
I
am
afraid
that
is
all
your
documentation
shows.
The
law
is
that
you
were,
or
the
fact
is,
that
you
were
employed
and
paid
by
the
Calgary
Board
of
Education
and
consequently
from
that,
you
are
a
servant
and
an
employee
of
that
Board,
and
not
of
the
Province
of
Alberta
whereby
you
would
be
in
a
different
position.
I
can
sympathize
with
your
reasoning
but
the
section,
the
deeming
section
250,
is
there
for
many
reasons,
and
there
are
many
other
sections
in
the
Act
to
which
the
deeming
section
relates;
and
the
part
of
section
250
which
you
sought
to
interpret
as
bringing
you
within
the
ambit
of
the
provisions
of
section
62
relating
to
moving
expenses,
I
am
afraid
fails.
I
am
restricted
strictly
to
the
terms
of
the
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
in
this
case,
particularly
section
62
relating
to
the
deductibility
of
moving
expenses
and
the
facts
that
have
been
presented
do
not
bring
you
within
the
provisions
of
section
62
permitting
the
deduction
of
moving
expenses
for
your
move
to
Australia
in
the
year
1978.
Consequently
the
expenses
you
sought
to
deduct
for
your
trip
to
Australia
are
not
deductible
and
I
must
dismiss
your
appeal.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content