Delmer
E
Taylor:—The
point
at
issue
in
this
appeal
is
whether
or
not
two
receipts
for
the
year
1977
(one
for
$14,
the
other
for
$18,
totalling
$32),
provide
the
taxpayer
with
the
deduction
for
tuition
fees
allowed
under
paragraph
60(f)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act—“tf
such
amount
exceeds
$25”.
It
is
common
ground
between
the
parties
that
the
taxpayer
meets
all
the
other
qualifications
in
that
section.
The
taxpayer
contends
that
..
the
minimum
of
$25
is
applicable
to
the
total
receipts
in
the
year
rather
than
to
any
individual
receipt.
This
position
is
consistent
with
the
Interpretation
Act.”
The
position
of
the
respondent
was
that
“the
claim
did
not
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraph
60(f)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
aforementioned
since
neither
of
the
amounts
claimed
exceeded
$25
as
required
in
this
section.”
Exhaustive
lists
of
previous
legal
cases
touching
on
this
point
were
presented
by
both
parties,
with
appropriate
references
and
commments.
It
can
be
readily
determined
from
the
legislative
record
that
the
appellant’s
reliance
upon
the
Interpretation
Act
is
well
founded—“the
singular
includes
the
plural,
unless
the
context
otherwise
requires”
(ie
Headnote:
Poole
Electronic
Supplies
Limited
v
MNR,
24
Tax
ABC
305;
60
DTC
369).
selecting
the
portion
of
section
60(f)
of
the
Act
relevant
to
this
appeal,
one
reads:
Other
deductions.
There
may
be
deducted
.
..
(f)
.
.
.
where
the
taxpayer
was
during
the
year
a
student
enrolled
at
an
educational
institution
in
Canada
the
amount
of
any
fees
..
.
paid
to
the
educational
institution
.
.
.
if
such
amount
exceeds
$25,
.
.
.
.
(Italics
mine).
It
is
clear
to
me
that
the
term
amount
can
certainly
be
a
total
amount,
comprising
of
two
or
more
individual
amounts,
without
breaching
the
context
of
that
section.
The
relevance
of
the
terms
‘‘an
educational
institution”
and
“the
educational
institution”
was
not
raised
and,
accordingly,
the
issue
that
could
arise
from
the
fact
that
the
two
receipts
in
question
in
this
appeal
were
paid
to
two
different
institutions
is
not
being
determined
in
this
decision.
The
appeal
is
allowed
and
the
matter
referred
back
to
the
Minister
for
reassessment
accordingly.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content