Beaubier
T.C.J.
(orally):
This
appeal
pursuant
to
the
Informal
Procedure
was
heard
in
Vancouver,
B.C.,
on
July
5,
1999.
The
Appellant
was
the
only
witness.
She
resided
in
and
was
at
all
material
times
a
high
school
teacher
in
Coquitlam,
a
suburb
of
Vancouver.
She
has
appealed
a
reassessment
for
her
1996
taxation
year
which
disallowed
her
claim
for
a
deduction
of
$441.95
for
driving
lessons.
The
assumptions
in
the
Reply
to
Notice
of
Appeal
read:
In
so
reassessing
the
Appellant,
the
Minister
relied
on
the
following
assumptions:
a)
in
1996,
the
Appellant
was
employed
by
School
District
#43
in
Coquitlam
as
a
teacher:
b)
during
the
same
period,
the
Appellant
was
enrolled
part-time
in
the
Masters
of
Education
Program
at
the
University
of
British
Columbia
(‘UBC’)
in
respect
of
which
she
paid
tuition
fees
of
$1,307.00;
C)
in
the
period
from
August
to
September,
1996,
the
Appellant
took
driving
lessons
from
Bestway
Driving
School
(the
‘School’)
in
respect
of
which
she
paid
the
Amount;
d)
the
School
was
certified
by
the
Minister
of
Human
Resources
Development
as
required
by
subparagraph
118.5(1
)(a)(ii)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act:
and
e)
the
purpose
of
the
Appellant’s
enrolment
at
the
School
was
not
to
provide
the
Appellant
with
skills
in
an
occupation
or
to
improve
her
skills
in
an
occupation.
The
question
is
whether
the
purpose
of
Ms.
Peplow’s
enrolment
for
the
driving
lessons
can
reasonably
be
regarded
as
being
to
provide
her
with
skills
or
to
improve
her
skills
in
an
occupation.
She
testified
that
she
took
lessons
and
bought
a
car,
so
that
she
could
drive
to
her
UBC
classes
from
her
high
school
within
one
hour
so
as
to
be
on
time
at
the
university.
The
classes
were
taken
so
that
she
could
obtain
a
Masters
degree
in
her
field
of
education.
Assumptions
a),
b),
c)
and
d)
are
true.
The
issue
lies
in
assumption
e).
Subparagraphs
118.5(1
)(a)(i),
(1.1)
and
(11.2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
as
they
apply
to
1996
read:
(1)
For
the
purpose
of
computing
the
tax
payable
under
this
Part
by
an
individual
for
a
taxation
year,
there
may
be
deducted,
(a)
where
the
individual
was
during
the
year
a
student
enrolled
at
an
educational
institution
in
Canada
that
is
(i)
a
university
or
college
or
other
educational
institution
providing
courses
at
a
post-secondary
school
level,
or
(11)
certified
by
the
Minister
of
Human
Resources
Development
to
be
an
educational
institution
providing
courses,
other
than
courses
designed
for
university
credit,
that
furnish
a
person
with
skills
for,
or
improve
a
person’s
skills
in,
an
occupation,
an
amount
equal
to
the
product
obtained
when
the
appropriate
percentage
for
the
year
is
multiplied
by
the
amount
of
any
fees
for
the
individual’s
tuition
paid
in
respect
of
the
year
to
the
educational
institution
if
the
total
of
those
fees
exceeds
$100,
except
to
the
extent
that
those
fees
(ii.l)
are
paid
to
an
educational
institution
described
in
subparagraph
(i)
in
respect
of
courses
that
are
not
at
the
post-secondary
school
level,
(ii.2)
are
paid
to
an
educational
institution
described
in
subparagraph
(11)
if
(A)
the
individual
had
not
attained
the
age
of
16
years
before
the
end
of
the
year,
or
(B)
the
purpose
of
the
individual’s
enrolment
at
the
institution
cannot
reasonably
be
regarded
as
being
to
provide
the
individual
with
skills,
or
to
improve
the
individual’s
skills,
in
an
occupation,
The
words
“in
an
occupation”
are
directed
to
a
particular
occupation.
The
purpose
of
enrolment
must
be
to
provide
skills
in
that
particular
occupation.
The
skills
are
not
ancillary
to
that
occupation.
Nor
are
there
to
assist
as
a
periphery
to
the
occupation.
They
are
skills
directly
in
the
occupation.
In
this
case,
the
lessons
were
taken
so
that
the
Appellant
could
take
university
courses.
Since
then,
she
apparently
drives
from
home
to
work
and
to
teachers’
meetings.
But
those
are
not
skills
in
her
teaching
(an
“occupation”).
She
does
not
teach
anything
that
relates
to
driving
itself,
nor
did
she
intend
to
when
she
took
the
lessons.
For
this
reason,
her
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content