Denault
J.A.:
In
the
case
at
bar,
the
applicant
has
not
convinced
us
that
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Judge
made
an
error
that
warrants
this
Court’s
intervention.
The
taxpayer
lived
in
Val
Bélair,
Quebec
when
he
was
hired
as
a
peace
officer
by
the
Royal
Canadian
Mounted
Police.
His
employer
immediately
sent
him
to
Montréal
to
take
an
English
course
from
September
1991
to
May
1992,
and
it
deducted
$360
a
month
from
his
salary
for
his
room
and
board
with
a
host
family
during
the
months
he
was
taking
the
course.
It
has
been
established
that
Montréal
was
not
his
employer’s
place
of
business.
When
the
taxpayer
sought
to
deduct
those
expenses
—
$1,338
for
the
1991
taxation
year
and
$3,315
for
the
1992
taxation
year—from
his
employment
income,
the
deductions
were
disallowed.
However,
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Judge
found
that
the
taxpayer
was
entitled
to
deduct
those
expenses
from
his
employment
income
since
he
had
been
required
to
carry
on
the
duties
of
his
employment
away
from
the
place
of
business
of
his
employer,
since
the
expenses
deducted
were
not
personal
expenses
and
since,
in
short,
he
met
the
requirements
of
paragraph
8(l)(/i)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
That
paragraph
reads
as
follows:
Deductions
allowed
8.
(1)
In
computing
a
taxpayer’s
income
for
a
taxation
year
from
an
office
or
employment,
there
ma
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,
and
(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....
The
judgment
in
respect
of
which
judicial
review
is
sought
is
very
terse.
It
would
no
doubt
have
been
desirable
for
the
Judge
to
say
more
about
one
of
the
criteria
found
in
subparagraph
8(
1
)(A)(i)
of
the
Act,
namely
whether
the
taxpayer,
in
the
year,
was
ordinarily
required
to
carry
on
the
duties
of
his
employment
away
from
his
employer’s
place
of
business
or
in
different
places.
However,
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Judge’s
analysis
of
the
evidence
shows
that
he
did
consider
this
question,
and
his
conclusion
is
consistent
with
the
interpretation
given
by
this
Court
in
Healy
v.
R.,
[1979]
2
F.C.
49
(Fed.
C.A.),
at
page
55:
The
objective
of
section
8(l)(/i)
is
to
enable
employee
who
are
required
by
their
employment
to
work
from
time
to
time
away
from
the
places
at
which
they
usually
work,
to
deduct
their
out-of-pocket
expenses
in
so
doing.
The
applicant
is
relying
on
an
interpretation
of
that
case
by
a
Tax
Review
Board
judge
in
Ronchka
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
((1979),
79
D.T.C.
854
(T.R.B.).
That
judge
found
that
paragraph
8(1)(h)
does
not
apply
where
the
assignment
away
from
the
regular
place
of
business
relates
only
to
a
single
and
isolated
event,
as
was
the
case
here.
In
our
view,
that
interpretation
is
incorrect.
Even
a
literal
interpretation
of
subparagraph
8(l)(/i)(i)
leads
to
the
conclusion
that
the
respondent
was
ordinarily
carrying
on
the
duties
of
his
employment
away
from
his
employer’s
place
of
business
while
he
was
assigned
to
Montréal
during
the
1991
and
1992
taxation
years.
The
application
for
judicial
review
should
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content