McArthur
T.C.J.
:
These
appeals
with
respect
to
the
1991
and
1992
taxation
years
were
heard
in
Regina,
Saskatchewan
under
the
informal
procedure
of
this
Court.
The
point
at
issue
is
whether
the
appellant
was
entitled
to
deduct
from
his
employment
income
the
disallowed
expenses
in
the
amount
of
$1,338
for
the
1991
taxation
year
and
$3,315.20
for
the
1992
taxation
year.
The
relevant
facts
are
as
follows.
The
appellant
was
employed
as
a
peace
officer
with
the
Royal
Canadian
Mounted
Police
(R.C.M.P.
-
employer).
He
lived
with
his
family
in
Val
Bélair.
He
was
sent
by
his
employer
to
Montreal,
without
his
family,
to
take
an
English
course.
This
was
not
a
job
transfer.
The
course
involved
a
practical
placement
in
the
home
of
an
Anglophone
family
and
taking
English
courses
at
the
Guy
Favreau
Complex
for
a
period
of
seven
months.
His
employer
deducted
$360
per
month
for
his
room
and
board
for
the
months
he
was
in
Montréal.
His
family
was
required
to
stay
in
Val
Bélair,
his
place
of
residence
and
his
place
of
work.
His
stay
in
Montréal
was
temporary
and
it
was
not
his
place
of
work.
After
the
period
in
Montréal,
he
and
his
family
were
transferred
to
Swift
Current,
Saskatchewan.
The
R.C.M.P.
(employer)
covered
the
costs
of
moving
from
his
place
of
work,
Val
Bélair,
Quebec,
to
Swift
Current,
Saskatchewan.
This
was
not
the
case
when
he
was
studying
in
Montréal.
The
length
of
his
stay
in
Montréal
was
not
pre-determined.
The
courses
were
for
an
indefinite
period.
Montréal
was
not
his
employer’s
place
of
business.
The
point
at
issue
is
whether
the
appellant
was
entitled
to
deduct
from
his
employment
income
the
disallowed
expenses
in
the
amount
of
$1,338
for
the
1991
taxation
year
and
$3,3150.20
for
the
1992
taxation
year.
Appellant’s
position
He
was
hired
as
a
regular
member
of
the
R.C.M.P.
in
September
1991.
His
employer
(the
R.C.M.P.)
sent
him
on
an
English-as-a-second-language
training
course
in
Montréal
for
an
indefinite
period.
His
permanent
residence
was
in
Val
Bélair,
Quebec,
where
his
dependants
lived.
He
was
required
to
live
with
a
host
family
in
Montréal
and
to
pay
some
$360
per
month
over
and
above
the
rent
and
living
expenses
of
his
dependants
in
Val
Bélair,
although
he
could
have
lived
with
relatives
at
much
less
expense.
Respondent’s
position
He
is
of
the
opinion
that
the
Minister
was
justified
in
not
allowing
the
deduction
in
issue
because
the
appellant
was
not
required
to
carry
on
the
duties
of
his
employment
away
from
the
employer’s
place
of
business
or
in
different
places,
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
paragraph
8(1
)(A)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(the
“Act”)
and
the
expenses
deducted
were
personal
expenses
of
the
appellant,
and
consequently
the
appellant
was
not
entitled,
pursuant
to
subsection
8(2)
of
the
Act,
to
deduct
these
expenses
from
his
employment
income.
Paragraph
8(l)(/i)
reads
as
follows:
Deductions
allowed.
(1)
In
computing
a
taxpayer’s
income
for
a
taxation
year
from
an
office
or
employment,
there
may
be
deducted
such
of
the
following
amounts
as
are
wholly
applicable
to
that
source
or
such
part
of
the
following
amounts
as
may
reasonably
be
regarded
as
applicable
thereto:
(h)
where
the
taxpayer,
in
the
year,
(i)
was
ordinarily
required
to
carry
on
the
duties
of
his
employment
away
from
his
employer’s
place
of
business
or
in
different
places,
(ii)
under
the
contract
of
employment
was
required
to
pay
travelling
expenses
incurred
by
him
in
the
performance
of
the
duties
of
his
office
or
employment,
amounts
expended
by
the
taxpayer
in
the
year
...
for
travelling
in
the
course
of
the
taxpayer’s
employment,...
Subsection
8(2)
of
the
Act
reads
as
follows:
(2)
Except
as
permitted
by
this
section,
no
deductions
shall
be
made
in
computing
a
taxpayer’s
income
for
a
taxation
year
from
an
office
or
employment.
The
Court
had
the
benefit
of
hearing
the
appellant’s
testimony.
I
am
satisfied
that
the
appellant
was
required
to
carry
on
the
duties
of
his
employment
away
from
his
employer’s
place
of
business.
The
appellant
meets
the
requirements
of
paragraph
8(l)(/z)
of
the
Act.
The
expenses
deducted
were
not
personal
expenses
of
the
appellant.
Accordingly,
the
appellant
was
entitled
to
deduct
the
expenses
from
his
employment
income
in
accordance
with
subsection
8(2)
of
the
Act.
The
appeals
of
Alain
Tremblay,
the
appellant,
for
the
1991
and
1992
taxation
years
are
allowed.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content