John Bernard Dale v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] CTC 2208, 77 DTC 124

Delmer E Taylor:—This is an appeal from an income tax assessment for the year 1974 in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed an amount of $2,524.77 claimed by the appellant as travelling expenses. Although both the appellant and the respondent had originally relied, inter alia, upon paragraphs 8(1 )(a) and (h) and subsection 8(2) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, chapter 148, as amended by SC 1970-71-72, chapter 63, at the hearing counsel for the respondent took the position that the Minister accepted the principle of the deductibility of the travelling expenses but that the dispute related to the quantum to be allowed. Counsel based this opinion on the recent decision given by the Honourable L J Cardin, QC, Chairman of this Board, in John T Klue v MNR, [1976] CTC 2401; 76 DTC 1303.

Merely for record purposes, it is noted that the appellant in the present appeal was a police officer employed by the Metropolitan Toronto Police and lived, during the time material, at 569 Rouge Hill Drive, West Rouge, Pickering, Ontario. The travelling expenses claimed were for driving his own automobile to Provincial Court, Magistrate’s Court, or County Court during his regular off-duty hours. Essentially, the other facts upon which this appeal was based are similar to those brought forward in the K/ue appeal (supra).

The appellant filed the following statement with his income tax return for 1974:

Statement for “Other allowable expenses”

During the year 1974 I was required to attend court. I do not receive any travelling expenses for this.

Miles to and from court		48 Miles
@ 18 cents a mile	X	180
Equals		$ 8.64
Parking		$ 1.75
Total per journey		$10.39
Total court appearances	X	243
Total travelling expenses		$2524.77

In direct evidence and under cross-examination the appellant provided information that to the Board appears adequate and satisfactory on the major point dealing with the total of $2,524.77—how he could make 243 court appearances in one year, during his off-duty hours, while still performing his regular shift of work. In brief the explanation was that his work shift was normally 7 pm to 3 am (the evening) and that court appearances were ordered for him often at both the 10 am and the 2 pm sessions of the various courts at which he was required to attend. The appellant proffered as evidence the court attendance slips which he received each time and which he had dutifully saved. Evidence in support of the parking charges was also given by the appellant and reviewed with him by both counsel for the respondent and the presiding Member of the Board.

There is no basis upon which there should be a reduction in the amount claimed by the appellant. It is reasonable on all counts and there is no question he was required to attend the court appearances. There was some indication that the appellant on occasions may not have gone home after the 10 am court appearance, and then returned for the 2 pm court appearance, but his testimony was that this would have been infrequent. His efforts had been directed toward spending as much time as possible with his family between these court appearances. The appellant also pointed out that on these occasions he did not make any claim for his noon-hour meal but the matter of whether or not such a charge would have been deductible was not raised.

The appeal is allowed and the matter is referred back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment accordingly.

Appeal allowed.