Delmer
E
Taylor:—This
is
an
appeal
from
an
income
tax
assessment
for
the
year
1974,
in
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
disallowed
a
deduction
of
$600
from
taxable
income
claiming
that
the
appellant
was
not
a
student
in
full-time
attendance
at
a
designated
educational
institution
during
that
year.
Both
the
appellant
and
the
respondent
rely
on
the
provisions
of
paragraph
110(1)(g)
and
subsection
110(9)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63,
as
amended.
Facts
The
appellant
was
employed
during
the
taxation
year
by
the
Vancouver
School
Board
as
a
vice-principal
of
a
high
school
at
a
salary
in
excess
of
$22,000.
He
was
also
engaged
in
the
preparation
of
his
thesis
for
a
PhD
in
Education,
enrolled
at
the
University
of
British
Columbia.
Contentions
The
appellant
contends
that
he
was
a
doctoral
student,
in
full-time
attendance
at
the
University
of
British
Columbia,
and
that
this
was
his
primary
interest
and
endeavour,
consuming
ten
hours
per
day
of
his
time
on
courses
and
his
thesis,
and
that
in
addition
he
carried
on
his
employment
responsibilities
to
the
satisfaction
of
all
concerned.
Further,
he
contends
that
he
followed
the
standard
and
accepted
curriculum
and
routine—which
included
extensive
consultation
and
discussion
with
his
professors
at
every
opportunity—including
practically
every
night
and
weekend,
and
that
there
was
no
other
method
or
program
of
which
he
was
aware
which
could
be
described
as
more
“full
time”
for
his
particular
academic
pursuit.
The
respondent
asserts
that
the
appellant’s
primary
occupation
was
that
of
a
vice-principal,
and
not
a
full-time
student
attending
university.
Evidence
It
was
brought
out
in
evidence
that
the
completion
of
the
doctoral
degree
alone
required
four
and
one-half
years.
The
appellant
received
his
BA
degree
in
1957,
took
an
MA
degree
in
Physical
Education,
began
teaching
in
1961,
took
two
years
out
of
teaching
for
a
second
MA
degree
in
History,
then
returned
to
teaching,
becoming
a
viceprincipal
in
1972.
He
was
one
of
two
vice-principals,
dealing
with
organization
and
administration
in
a
school
having
approximately
1,800
students.
His
school-work
day
commenced
about
7:45
am,
continuing
normally
until
about
3:00
pm.
He
enrolled
in
the
doctoral
program
in
1972,
and
took
off
approximately
one
and
one-half
years
from
teaching
to
complete
the
earlier
phases
of
the
academic
program,
returning
to
his
teaching
post
for
the
latter
part
of
the
course.
The
following
excerpts
are
taken
from
the
evidence
transcript:
Q.
Now,
including
yourself,
most
students
in
the
Graduate
Study
Program
usually
have
some
form
of
income
coming
in,
is
that
not
correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Such
as
bursaries,
loans,
GTA’s,
where
they’re
teaching
assistants
or
something
of
that
nature?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What,
for
example,
can
you
recall,
were
the
other
activities
of
some
of
your
contemporaries?
You
were
a
vice-principal.
Can
you
recall
the
activities
of
some
other
contemporaries,
your
colleagues,
who
were
taking
the
same
program
as
you?
A.
One
was
a
radio
broadcaster,
one
was
a
principal,
one
was
a
minister
in
a
church
and
another
one
had
something
to
do
with
administration
at
the
University
of
Alberta.
Q.
Now
these
courses
which
you
took
in
1974,
this
course
601
that
started
in
September
1974.
This
was
a
seminar
course,
is
that
correct?
A.
Correct.
Q
.
And
how
many
people
would
be
in
the
seminar?
A
.
Seven
and
two
professors.
Q
.
And
two
professors.
And
you
would
meet
every
day?
A.
No,
Mondays,
Wednesdays,
Fridays.
Q.
And
you
would
meet
for
about
four
hours,
is
that
correct?
A.
No,
three
hours.
Q
.
Three
hours?
A
.
Sometimes
it
ran
on
to
seven
or
eight
hours,
but
it
was
scheduled
for
three
hours.
Q.
And
what
would
you
do
for
these
seminars?
Would
you
be
preparing
papers
that
you
would
discuss,
each
student
prepare
a
paper
or
.
.
.
A.
Sometimes.
Q.
What
other
things
took
place?
A.
Discussed
books.
The
professors
had
a
series
of
goals
they
wanted
to
accomplish
in
discussion
of
research
methodology
and
research
philosophy.
Q.
And
this
course
was
from
what
time
till
what
time,
do
you
recall?
A.
Four
o’clock
till
seven.
Q.
And
you
also
at
the
same
time
took
course
699.
Did
that
involve
any
attendance
to
seminars
or
lectures?
A.
No,
it
was
all
by
appointment
with
one
or
two
men
and
it
would
last
anywhere
from
30
minutes
to
five
or
six
hours.
Q.
Now,
during
this
year,
1974,
you
had
to
prepare
for
this
601
course,
presumably,
correct
me
if
I’m
wrong,
you
would
have
to
present
papers
and
listen
to
the
students—the
papers
of
other
students
and
probably
offer
criticisms
or
comments,
is
that
correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
In
addition
you
had
course
699
and
is
that
the
course
where
you
would
be
working
on
your
thesis?
A.
Correct.
Q.
And
you
would
associate
or
you
would
consult
a
faculty
member
who
would
be
sort
of
your
supervisor?
A.
Correct.
Q.
And
for
the
purposes
of
this
course
you
just
had
to
keep
in
touch
with
your
supervisor,
maintain
a
liaison
and
consult
him
with
your
problems
and
at
the
same
time
he
would
oversee
the
work
you’re
doing,
is
that
correct?
A.
In
part,
yes.
Q.
When
would
you
usually
see
the
professor
on
your
course
699,
on
Saturdays?
A.
Tuesdays,
Thursdays,
Saturdays,
sometimes
Sundays.
Q.
Did
you
see
him
every
week?
A.
As
often
as
I
could.
Q.
I
take
it
that
in
about
1972,
you
determined
you
were
going
to
complete
your
doctoral
degree?
A.
That’s
correct.
Q.
And
made
arrangements
to
take
about
a
year
and
a
half
sabbatical
or
whatever
the
term
might
be?
A.
Correct.
Q.
And
persisted
in
this
endeavour
as
a
prime
endeavour
rather
than
using
the
words
full
time
or
part
time.
That
was
your
major
objective
during
that
year
and
a
half,
is
that
a
fair
statement?
Well,
did
you
do
anything
else?
Did
you
have
any
employment?
A.
No,
no.
The
answer
is
yes,
that
was
my
main
endeavour.
Q.
You
know,
we’re
not
talking
about
minor
details,
but
I
presume
you
didn’t
take
a
year
and
a
half
subbatical
without
the
intention
of
.
..
A.
No,
it
was
just
that
I
was
thinking
of
physical
activity
as
opposed
to
the
psychological
approach.
Whether
that
was
the
number
one
thing
on
my
mind
at
the
time—it
was
my
number
one
activity,
physical
activity.
Q.
Yes.
And
.
.
.
?
A.
Later
one
comes
to
either
become
very
fanatical
or
you
forget
it.
Q.
You
mean
.
.
.
A.
In
the
latter
stages
of
the
degree,
it
was
the
degree
which
was
my
number
one
thought
all
the
time.
Q.
Well,
during
this
year
and
a
half
period
when
you
had
less
in
the
way
of
other
activities
to
fill
up
a
fairly
complete
day,
what
was
your
activity
as
it
related
to
university
attendance
or
attendance
at
lectures
or
discussions
or
meetings
with
professors
that
related
to
the
pursuit
of
the
doctoral
degree
from
’72
and
early
’73?
A.
If
I
understand
your
question
correctly,
I
would
describe
my
courses
and
meeting
with
professors
as
normal,
usual,
where
you
would
go
for
an
hour
to
a
course,
see
the
professor
for
an
hour,
write
a
term
paper,
and
write
an
exam,
and
either
pass
or
fail
the
course,
during
that
year
and
a
half.
That
consumed
much
of
my
time.
I
wasn't
writing
anything,
just
attending
course
and
exploring
for
possible
research
areas.
Q.
This
was
after
you
already
were
possessed
of
two
Masters
degrees?
A.
Correct.
Q.
And
do
I
take
it
that
during
that
year
and
a
half
you
may
not
have
psychologically
determined
that
you
intended
to
finish
your
PhD
but
that
you
were
exploring
the
prospects?
A.
No,
I
was
pretty
well
.
.
.
I
was
committed.
Q.
You
were
committed?
A.
I
wasn't
geared
up
to
the
zeal
level
that
you
needed.
Q.
Now,
I’m
not
one
of
the
fortunate
people
that
have
a
PhD
but
from
a
layman’s
viewpoint,
correct
me
if
I’m
wrong—let
me
try
to
describe
it
as
I
understand
it—at
least
during
the
last
year
or
two
of
work
towards
a
PhD.
It’s
not
organized
routine
work
such
as
one
would
encounter
in
a
normal
Bachelor
of
Arts
Degree
for
example.
There
are—there’s
a
very
close
relationship
to
a
particular
objective
in
which
certain
professors
or
a
professor
is
working
with
you
on
the
thesis
and
that’s
the
main
objective.
Is
that
a
fairly
concise
layman’s
interpretation
of
it,
or
perhaps
you
could
interpret
it
somewhat
more
explicitly
in
one
or
two
sentences?
Give
me
a
relationship
between
the
third
year
of
a
BA
degree
and
the
final
or
third
year
of
a
PhD
degree?
A.
Well,
they’re
eons
apart,
miles
apart.
Where
you
would
have
a
cursory
acquaintance
with
a
professor,
maybe
an
hour’s
lecture,
all
of
a
sudden
it
becomes
a
very
intimate
relationship
dedicated
to
one
goal
and
you
work
with
these
professors
for
five,
six,
seven,
eight,
12
hours
at
a
time,
at
a
stretch,
leave
them
for
two
hours,
and
go
back
and
start
all
over
again
at
any
time
of
the
day
or
night.
So,
to
talk
about
where
is
your
class,
it
could
be
in
his
office
or
your
office
or
in
his
house
or
in
your
den
or
in
a
basement
or
anywhere
you
can
find
some
heat
or
light
at
five
in
the
morning
or
five
in
the
afternoon.
It’s
not
usual.
Q.
It’s
not
ordered?
A.
It’s
not
ordinary
and
it’s
not
orderly.
But
to
say
you’re
not
a
student
in
the
last
instance,
when
you
are
in
the
third
year
Arts
course
is
hard
for
me
to
understand,
even
though
they’re
different.
Q.
You
said
you
met
with
your
professors,
I
believe
your
term
was,
“as
often
as
I
could
”.
Do
you
mean,
“as
often
as
I
could’’,
are
you
speaking
of
his
option
or
your
option?
A.
Well,
you
have
to
work
together.
There
are
three
factors—his
life,
your
life
and
the
work
to
be
discussed.
You
might
work
together
for
a
while,
and
then
you
have
to—the
student
has
to
go
away,
and
rebuild.
As
soon
as
it’s
ready
to
be
evaluated
again,
back
you
go,
and
this
could
.
.
.
you
could
be
back
in
an
hour
or
a
couple
of
days.
Q.
When
did
you
receive
your
doctoral
degree?
A.
May
1976.
One
further
matter
which
came
up
during
the
examination
of
the
appellant
was
that
during
the
year
in
question
he
had
also
been
engaged
in
a
limited
manner
in
the
swimming
pool
supply
and
maintenance
business.
The
Board
points
out
at
this
time
that
it
does
not
consider
this
relevant
to
the
main
issue.
Argument
The
position
of
the
appellant
in
his
own
words
was
as
follows:
.
.
_.
It
is
just
that
I
saw
myself
as
a
full-time
student
in
1974
with
extraordinary
expenses.
I
could
not
conceive
of
myself
as
not
being
a
student,
that’s
all.
In
the
summary
I
agree
that
the
two
main
points
are
one
of
definition.
The
definition
of
a
full-time
student,
definition
of
full-time
attendance.
These
have
not
been
attended
to,
I
suppose,
by
the
University
or
other
people.
They
certainly
haven’t
been
attended
to
by
me.
The
main
question
is,
can
a
person
have
two
full-time
jobs?
I
don’t
see
why
not
because
it
has
not
been
defined
what
is
a
full-time
job.
Eight
hours?
There
are
several
eight
hours
within
a
day.
To
say
that
I
was
a
vice-principal
during
1974
was
correct,
that
I
reported
to
school
every
day
is
not
correct.
I
reported
five
days
a
week.
There
are
seven
days
that
I
made
use
of.
One,
I
went
to
the
first
year
and
a
half
because
of
the
differing
nature
of
the
course,
courses,
as
we
tried
to
point
out
but
they
became
different
later
on.
So
again
we
have
a
question
of
which
was
first
in
my
mind,
school
or
the
other
job
and
more
basic
to
that
is,
can
you
have
two
jobs
in
one
day.
I
guess
that’s
it.
To
say
that
it
was
a
busy
time
I
can
agree,
it
was
a
busy
time.
The
argument
of
counsel
for
the
respondent
was
that
the
appellant
was
a
full-time
vice-principal
of
a
high
school
and
that
this
precluded
him,
contemporaneously,
from
being
a
full-time
student
at
a
university.
Counsel’s
position
was
upheld
in
his
view
by
Interpretation
Bulletin
IT-223
from
Revenue
Canada
dealing
with
the
matter,
and
by
decisions
on
earlier
cases.
Counsel
did
point
out
that
although
these
earlier
cases
were
under
the
“old”
Income
Tax
Act,
there
did
not
appear
to
be
any
precedent
dealing
specifically
with
the
“new”
Act.
The
cases
cited
by
counsel
were
John
Paul
Reddam
v
MNR
(1964),
35
Tax
ABC
344,
64
DTC
382;
MNR
v
Frank
Albert
Ritchie,
[1971]
CTC
860,
71
DTC
5503;
and
Hart
J
Levin
v
MNR,
[1971]
CTC
66,
71
DTC
5047.
Particular
emphasis
was
placed
by
counsel
on
the
decision
of
the
Federal
Court
in
MNR
v
Ritchie
(supra)
and
I
quote
the
following
excerpt
from
page
862
[5505]:
I
agree
with
the
interpretation
given
this
section
in
the
Reddam
case
(supra)
where
the
pertinent
facts
are
nearly
identical
to
the
facts
in
this
case.
In
Reddam
there
appears
the
following
statement:
When
a
person
is
a
full-time
employee
somewhere,
how
can
he
also
be
a
full-time
student
elsewhere
within
the
same
24
hours?
.
.
.
when
an
individual
has
full-time
status
in
respect
of
one
regular
activity
throughout
a
working
day,
as
in
the
present
instance,
any
other
activity
indulged
in
during
that
same
24
hour
day
will
necessarily
be
only
a
part-time
activity
Findings
I
am
conscious
of
the
difficulty
which
this
appeal
poses
to
the
Board
in
the
light
of
the
interpretations
which
can
be
placed
upon
these
earlier
decisions.
The
two
postures
of
“full-time
employment”
and
“full-time
student”
may
appear
to
have
been
placed
in
juxtaposition
to
each
other—leaving
only
the
characteristic
of
mutual
exclusion.
There
are,
however,
several
points
I
should
like
to
bring
forward.
First,
to
reiterate
the
comment
of
counsel
for
the
respondent
that
this
is
a
new
section
of
the
Act
and
that
there
is
no
specific
precedent
dealing
with
it;
second,
that
the
term
used
in
the
Income
Tax
Act
is
“in
full-
time
attendance”,
not
the
term
“full-time
student”;
third,
that
no
evidence
was
brought
forward
indicating
that
the
appellant
did
not
fulfill
appropriately
his
assigned
responsibilities
as
a
high
school
viceprincipal;
fourth,
the
appellant
stated
that
his
principal
dedication
was
to
the
completion
of
his
thesis,
and
the
time
and
energy
apparently
required
and
given
by
him
should
support
his
view;
and
finally,
in
the
Ritchie
(supra)
decision,
rather
than
an
adoption
of
a
specific
position
by
the
learned
judge,
a
question
was
posed:
When
a
person
is
a
full-time
employee
somewhere,
how
can
he
also
be
a
full-time
student
elsewhere
within
the
same
24
hours?
With
respect,
I
assume
that
if
a
response
is
provided
to
that
question
which
at
a
minimum
would
warrant
consideration,
then
the
Board
might
be
entitled
to
look
beyond
the
specific
parameters
of
the
answer
somewhat
tentatively
proposed
in
the
same
judgment:
.
.
.
when
an
individual
has
full-time
status
in
respect
of
one
regular
activity
throughout
a
working
day,
as
in
the
present
instance,
any
other
activity
indulged
in
during
that
same
24
hour
day
will
necessarily
be
only
a
part-
time
activity.
.
.
.
There
are
two
situations
that
come
to
my
mind
in
which
it
might
be
successfully
argued
that
an
individual
was
both
a
“full-time
employee’’
and
a
“full-time
student’’.
Consider
first
a
“full-time’’
university
student
with
a
schedule
requiring
him
to
attend
classes
five
days
a
week.
During
this
time
he
would
be
indistinguishable
from
any
of
his
fellow
“full-time’’
undergraduate
students.
If
he
were
fortunate
enough
to
locate
employment
from
5
pm
until
1
or
2
am,
he
would
complete
a
regular
shift
of
work
and
still
have
some
opportunity
for
rest
and
study.
Depending
upon
his
employment
which
could
be
monitoring
operating
machinery,
or
as
a
night
watchman
for
example,
he
might
even,
without
in
any
way
shirking
his
employment
responsibilities,
do
some
study
and
research
during
the
same
5
pm
to
1
am
period,
leaving
him
with
no
great
inconvenience.
He
would
be
considered
a
full-time
employee
by
his
employer,
particularly
if
regularly
he
replaced
the
man
who
left
at
5
pm
and
was
in
turn
replaced
by
another
who
assumed
the
role
at
1
or
2
am.
There
might
be
great
difficulty
in
deciding
that
he
was
more
a
“full-time
student’’
than
a
“full-time
employee’’
or
vice
versa—
fulfilling
as
he
would
both
criteria
separately
to
the
satisfaction
of
his
respective
superior
authorities.
A
second
and
possible
situation
might
be
exhibited
by
a
chauffeur
or
personal
assistant
to
a
corporate
executive.
It
is
conceivable
that
the
only
responsibility—for
which
he
was
required
to
be
available
(certainly
the
major
criteria
for
“full-time
employment”)
would
be
to
drive
his
employer
to
the
executive
office
at
8
am
and
pick
him
up
again
at
5
pm.
Certainly
there
would
be
no
interference
whatsoever
with
the
concerned
individual’s
academic
pursuits—full
time
as
either
a
day
or
night
student.
It
is
clearly
recognized
that
these
hypothetical
situations
demonstrate
only
that
the
circumstances
allowing
for
such
diversity
would
be
exceptional
indeed,
and
that
they
would
be
rare
at
the
undergraduate
level
but
perhaps
more
possible
at
a
graduate
degree
level.
If
these
or
similar
situations
were
accompanied
by
a
genuine
desire
on
the
part
of
both
the
employer
and
the
university
to
accept
any
small
inconveniences
which
would
arise,
then
there
is
little
doubt
in
my
mind
that
the
major
question
posed
in
the
Ritchie
(supra)
decision
could
be
answered
satisfactorily.
I
am
unable
to
find
that
the
context
of
the
Act
necessitates
the
determination
of
one
of
the
endeavours—“full-time
student”
or
“full-time
employee”
as
primary—thereby
relegating
the
other
to
a
subsidiary
position.
However,
to
whatever
degree
this
is
significant,
the
viewpoint,
effort
and
accomplishment
of
the
interested
party
himself
should
be
a
factor
of
some
weight
in
making
such
a
distinction.
The
Board
therefore
suggests
that
the
appellant
in
this
case
might
well
bring
himself
under
identifiable
parameters
as
both
a
“‘full-time
employee’’
and
a
“full-time
student’’.
However,
conceding
that
adherence
to
the
historical
work
ethic
and
contemporary
social
norms
might
give
“full-time
employee”
priority
over
“full-time
student”
in
any
direct
contrast,
the
point
remains
under
the
“new”
Income
Tax
Act
that
it
is
not
“full-time
student”
but
“in
full-time
attendance”
that
is
at
issue.
In
the
case
before
the
Board,
the
evidence
of
the
appellant,
uncontradicted
in
my
opinion,
is
that
there
was
no
reasonable
way
his
attendance
at
the
university
proper
could
have
been
more
“full
time”,
and
that
this
was
not
restricted
to
any
material
degree
by
the
demands
of
his
employment
but
rather
the
constraints
were
those
of
the
course
itself,
including
the
availability
of
the
professors
assisting
him.
Decision
It
is
the
view
of
the
Board
that
the
appellant
has
adequately
demonstrated
that
he
fulfills
the
criteria
necessary
to
qualify
for
a
student
deduction
under
paragraph
110(1)(g)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
in
that
he
was
in
full-time
attendance
pursuing
his
objective
of
completing
a
doctoral
degree
at
the
University
of
British
Columbia.
The
appeal
is
allowed
and
the
matter
referred
back
to
the
respondent
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment
accordingly.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content