Delmer
E
Taylor
(orally:
June
10,
1977):—This
is
an
appeal
from
Michael
Zukiwski
with
respect
to
his
1971,
1972
and
1973
taxation
years.
The
matter
at
issue
is
common
to
all
three
years.
It
is
the
disallowance
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
of
amounts
of
$1,962.70,
$1,858.76
and
$828.77
respectively
in
the
three
years
I
have
just
quoted.
The
disallowance
by
the
Minister
is
on
the
basis
that
these
amounts
were
portions
of
the
total
amount
of
expenses
paid
by
the
appellant’s
employer
to
him
during
those
years
for
personal
and
living
expenses.
The
agent
for
the
appellant
has
relied
on
paragraph
5(1
)(b)
of
the
old
Income
Tax
Act,
and
subparagraph
6(1
)(b)(vii)
of
the
new
Income
Tax
Act.
According
to
the
agent,
Mr
Oram,
these
are
identical
and
my
brief
review
of
them
indicates
that
if
there
are
any
differences
they
are
minimal
and
not
relevant
to
this
appeal.
I
shall
read
part
of
subparagraph
6(1)(b)(vii)
of
the
current
Income
Tax
Act
which
is
headed
“Amounts
to
be
included
as
income
from
office
or
employment”.
There
is
no
question
that
the
amounts
involved
were
from
employment
according
to
the
evidence
given
to
the
Board
this
morning.
To
be
included
are,
and
I
quote
from
paragraph
(b):
Personal
or
living
expenses
(b)
all
amounts
received
by
him
in
the
year
as
an
allowance
for
personal
or
living
expenses
or
as
an
allowance
for
any
other
purpose,
except
[and
the
exception
relied
on
by
the
agent
is
in
subparagraph
(vii)]
(vii)
allowances
(not
in
excess
of
reasonable
amounts)
for
travelling
expenses
received
by
an
employee
(other
than
an
employee
employed
in
connection
with
the
selling
of
property
or
negotiating
of
contracts
for
his
employer)
from
his
employer
if
they
were
computed
by
reference
to
time
actually
spent
by
the
employee
travelling
away
from
and
it
goes
on
to
place
of
business
and
so
on.
The
agent
for
the
appellant
has
demonstrated
that
in
his
view
the
exception
for
expenses
incurred
fall
within
the
general
parameter
of
that
subparagraph
(vii).
He
stated
emphatically
under
direct
questioning
that,
if
the
payments
were
not
exempted
under
this
subparagraph
(vii),
they
would
be
taxable.
The
problem
with
his
conclusion
is
that
it
deals
specifically
with
allowances.
It
does
not
deal
with
reimbursement
of
expenses
that
have
been
incurred.
An
allowance
is
a
limited,
fixed,
predetermined
amount
at
the
complete
and
sole
disposal
of
the
recipient.
The
amounts
received
by
this
appellant
were
not
allowances,
they
were
reimbursement
of
expenses,
and
the
Board
cannot
agree
to
the
applicability
of
an
exception
clause
which
deals
only
with
allowances.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content