Beaubier T.C.J.:
1 This appeal, pursuant to the informal procedure, was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on March 6th, 1997. The Appellant was the only witness.
2 He has appealed the disallowance for his claim for moving expenses from Victoria to Saskatoon in 1993-1994. The assumptions of the Minister of National Revenue read as follows:
4. In computing income for the 1994 Taxation Year, the Appellant claimed a deduction for moving expenses in the amount of $10,959.49.
5. In reassessing the Appellant for the 1994 Taxation Year, the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) disallowed the claim for moving expenses.
6. In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions:(a) the Appellant moved from Victoria B.C. to Moose Jaw Saskatchewan during 1993;
(b) the Appellant moved from Moose Jaw to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan during 1994;
(c) the Appellant did not move to Moose Jaw to commence employment in Moose Jaw;
(d) the Appellant moved to Moose Jaw and ordinarily resided there for 7 months prior to moving to Saskatoon to commence employment;
(e) the Appellant did not earn any employment income while living in Moose Jaw;
(f) the moving expenses were incurred for the Appellant's move from Victoria to Moose Jaw;
(g) the expenses the Appellant sought to deduct relate to moving in 1993 from Victoria to Moose Jaw;
(h) the Appellant ordinarily resided in Moose Jaw prior to his move to Saskatoon;
(i) the expenses sought to be deducted by the Appellant and disallowed by the Minister were not eligible moving expenses.
B. Issues to be Decided
7. The issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to a deduction for moving expenses.
C. Statutory Provisions, Grounds, Relied on and Relief Sought
8. He relies on section 62 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) as amended for the 1994 Taxation Year.
9. He submits that the Appellant was not entitled to claim moving expenses in the 1994 Taxation Year with regard to his move from Victoria to Moose Jaw and that he was correctly assessed pursuant to section 62 of the Act.
10. He requests that the appeal be dismissed.
3 The facts are more complicated than the assumptions. The Appellant is married and has two children who were three and four in 1993. He is a transit driver.
4 In about 1991 he considered giving up his job as a transit driver in Victoria and moving to Saskatoon. He interviewed Saskatoon Transit officials and retained contact with them until they employed him in 1994.
5 In 1993 he and his wife decided that they would move to Saskatoon and he would get a job as a transit driver. One reason for this was Mrs. Pitchford's previous abuse by a relative who lived them in Victoria.
6 The evidence is clear that by this time Mr. Pitchford had developed good relations with Saskatoon Transit officials. They shipped their furniture to Saskatoon and the family went to Saskatoon. When Mr. Pitchford interviewed the hiring officials at Saskatoon Transit he found that they had a new rule. He had to reside in Saskatchewan to get a job.
7 He looked for a house in Saskatoon. The court takes notice that, on the evidence, the district that he could afford was not very suitable for two small children. They left the furniture in storage in Saskatoon and moved in with his wife's brother in Moose Jaw for three months. The brother had a night job and slept in the day. So they moved into a house in Moose Jaw for another four months or so.
8 They took about 25 per cent of their furniture out of storage while they were in Moose Jaw and left the rest in storage in Saskatoon. Mr. Pitchford took out a Saskatchewan driver's licence and showed Moose Jaw as his residence. He kept his application alive with Saskatoon Transit and looked for work in Moose Jaw. He did not get any work. This is the typical job environment of the 1990's in Canada.
9 In December Saskatoon Transit had job openings, but by this time the applicants had to reside in Saskatoon. Mr. Pitchford began using his cousin's address in Saskatoon as his residence for his application to Saskatoon transit. In January, 1994, he was accepted as a driver for Saskatoon Transit. On February 7, 1994, he began to work for Saskatoon Transit. It was his first job since Victoria.
10 They came to Saskatoon, bought a house, took their furniture out of storage and are residing in Saskatoon.
11 In the Court's view the fact that the furniture was shipped to Saskatoon and 75 per cent remained in storage there is crucial. Until they took the furniture out of storage this family was merely sojourning.
12 To get a driver's licence the Appellant had to give an address. To get a job he had to reside in Saskatchewan, and then in Saskatoon. He complied with whatever he had to do to get a job. He got the job he planned to get when he left Victoria. Neither he nor his family could afford to settle down. They could only afford to reside where the job was.
13 Until the Appellant had a job, he and his wife had no settled routine of life where they regularly, normally or customarily lived. Moreover, they were not looking for transitory work and their history was not transitory.
14 In the Court's view the Appellant moved from his old residence in Victoria and did not take up a residence in which he ordinarily resided until he found his job in Saskatoon and got all of their furniture out of storage and established his family in Saskatoon.
15 On the facts before the Court he was in transit for the entire period until then. The appeal is allowed. This matter is referred to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with these reasons.
Email this Content