The
Assistant
Chairman:—This
is
the
appeal
of
Dieter
Broese
from
an
assessment
of
his
1970
tax
returns.
In
1970
Mr
Broese
was
employed
by
Zimmcor
Industries
Ltd
as
a
steel
worker
principally
engaged
in
the
installation
of
windows
and
curtain
walls
in
commercial
buildings.
During
that
year
Mr
Broese
was
transferred
to
the
construction
site
of
Durham
College
in
Oshawa
where
he
worked
steadily
for
a
period
of
eight
months.
While
working
at
the
Oshawa
construction
site
the
appellant
commuted
each
working
day
to
and
from
his
residence
in
Metropolitan
Toronto.
According
to
a
contract
with
Iron
Workers
Union
the
appellant,
while
working
in
Oshawa,
received
an
allowance
for
travelling
expenses
at
a
rate
of
$6
a
day
as
specified
in
the
union
contract
for
travel
over
25
miles.
According
to
a
letter
from
Zimmcor
(Exhibit
R1)
the
appellant’s
total
earnings
for
1970
included
an
amount
of
$684
for
travelling
expenses
which
is
described
in
the
letter
as
a
taxable
allowance.
The
appellant
sought
to
deduct
from
his
1970
income
the
amount
of
$684
for
travelling
expenses
which
was
disallowed
by
the
respondent
and
included
in
the
appellant’s
income
for
that
year.
Counsel
for
the
appellant
contends
that
the
$684
travel
allowance,
which
is
-a
reasonable
amount,
falls
squarely
within
the
meaning
and
intent
of
paragraph
5(2)(b)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
However,
counsel
for
the
appellant
read
only
the
following
extract
of
subsection
5(2):
5.
(2)
Construction
workers.—Notwithstanding
subsection
(1),
in
computing
the
income
of
a
taxpayer
for
a
taxation
year
from
an
office
or
employment,
where
the
taxpayer
was,
during
the
year,
employed
as
a
construction
worker,
there
shall
not
be
included
(b)
the
value
of,
or
an
allowance
(not
in
excess
of
a
reasonable
amount)
in
respect
of
expenses
incurred
by
him
for,
transportation
between
his
ordinary
place
of
residence
and
the
construction
site
referred
to
in
subparagraph
(i)
of
paragraph
(a),
.
.
.
Had
counsel
for
the
appellant
read
the
remainder
of
the
section
it
would
have
given
an
entirely
different
meaning.
Paragraph
5(2)(b)
continues:
.
.
.
received
by
him
(i)
in
respect
of,
in
the
course
of
or
by
virtue
of
his
employment
described
in
subparagraph
(i)
of
paragraph
(a),
and
(ii)
in
respect
of
a
period
described
in
subparagraph
(ii)
of
paragraph
(a),
during
which
he
received
board
and
lodging,
or
a
reasonable
allowance
in
respect
of
expenses
incurred
by
him
for
board
and
lodging,
from
his
employer.
Subparagraph
(ii)
of
paragraph
(a)
reads
—
(ii)
in
respect
of
a
period
while
he
was
required
by
his
duties
to
be
away,
for
a
period
of
not
less
than
36
hours,
from
his
ordinary
place
of
residence;
The
appellant
who
does
not
receive
a
board
or
lodging
allowance,
who
was
not
away
from
his
ordinary
place
of
residence
for
a
period
of
at
least
36
hours,
and
whose
employment
does
not
meet
the
description
of
employment
in
subparagraph
5(2)(a)(i)
does
not,
in
my
opinion,
fall
within
the
exceptions
provided
in
that
section.
It
also
seems
to
me
that
National
Revenue
Information
Bulletin
No
11,
dated
January
30,
1958,
referred
to
by
counsel
in
the
notice
of
appeal,
when
read
in
its
entirety,
reflects
accurately
and
indeed
specifies
the
conditions
required
in
subsection
5(2)
before
travelling
allowances
paid
to
construction
workers
can
be
deducted
from
income.
Nor
can
subparagraph
5(1)(b)(vii)
and/or
subsection
11(9),
being
exceptions
to
section
5
and
to
be
strictly
interpreted,
offer
the
appellant
any
relief
because
it
is
on
record
that
the
appellant
worked
steadily
at
the
Oshawa
construction
site
for
eight
months
and
although
Zimmcor’s
head
office
was
in
Montreal
with
a
branch
office
in
Toronto,
one
of
the
company’s
places
of
business
was
the
construction
site
in
Oshawa
where
the
appellant
ordinarily
reported
for
work,
where
he
carried
out
his
duties
and
from
which
he
commuted
daily
to
his
ordinary
place
of
residence.
Expenses
incurred
in
getting
to
the
place
where
an
employee
normally
discharges
his
duties
are
not
deductible.
The
appellant
not
meeting
the
requirements
of
the
exceptions
to
section
5,
the
travelling
allowance
of
$684
paid
to
him
in
1970
is
a
taxable
allowance
and
its
deduction
by
the
appellant
in
that
year
was
properly
disallowed
by
the
Minister.
The
appeal
is
therefore
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content