HYNDMAN,
D.J.:—This
is
an
appeal
from
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
dated
September
30,
1954
(11
Tax
A.B.C.
323)
in
respect
of
income
tax
assessment
for
the
taxation
year
1951
of
the
above
named
appellant.
The
section
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
involved
in
this
appeal
is
Section
12(1),
which
reads
as
follows:
“12.
(1)
In
computing
income,
no
deduction
shall
be
made
in
respect
of
a)
an
outlay
or
expense
except
to
the
extent
that
it
was
made
or
incurred
by
the
taxpayer
for
the
purpose
of
gaining
or
producing
income
from
property
or
a
business
of
the
taxpayer.”
In
the
case
at
bar,
the
appellant
claims
a
deduction
for
expenses
incurred
by
him
for
transportation,
meals,
and
lodging,
in
attending
various
meetings
of
Medical
Societies
in
Canada,
United
States
and
the
British
Isles.
The
appellant
is
a
medical
doctor
specializing
in
the
field
of
anaesthesia
and
is
one
of
the
outstanding
specialists
in
that
field.
He
is
the
chief
anaesthetist
at
the
Queen
Elizabeth
Hospital
in
Montreal,
and
a
consultant
at
the
Montreal
Neurological
Institute,
the
Reddy
Memorial
Hospital,
and
the
Jewish
General
Hospital,
has
been
on
the
teaching
staff
of
McGill
University
for
the
last
ten
years,
and
is
at
present
chairman
of
its
department
of
anaesthesia.
He
also
lectures
to
university
students
on
this
subject,
has
been
active
in
associations
of
anaesthetists
for
more
than
twenty-
five
years,
has
attended
medical
conventions
in
various
parts
of
the
world,
and
is
also
an
author
of
articles
on
this
subject.
The
facts
as
found
by
me
differ
in
no
material
respect
from
those
set
out
in
the
judgment
of
Mr.
Monet,
Q.C.,
chairman
of
the
Tax
Appeal
Board.
From
the
judgment
of
Mr.
Monet
I
quote
the
following
:
“The
issue
before
the
Board
is
whether
or
not
the
expenses
incurred
by
the
appellant
in
1951
to
attend
conventions
and
Board
of
Directors’
meetings
meet
the
test
of
having
been
incurred
by
him
for
the
purpose
of
gaining
or
producing
the
income
from
his
profession
which,
under
the
provisions
of
Section
127
(1)
(e)
of
the
Act,
is
a
business.”
I
have
considered
very
carefully
the
reasons
for
judgment
of
Mr.
Monet
and
I
am
in
complete
accord
with
his
conclusions
of
fact
and
law;
I
feel
that
I
can
add
nothing
of
value
to
what
he
has
said.
I
might
just
add,
however,
that
in
my
view
the
proper
interpretation
of
the
section
above
mentioned
is
that,
in
order
to
claim
exemption,
the
expenses
must
have
been
incurred
with
the
object
of
actual
or
immediate
gain
or
profit
as
a
result
of
the
visits
in
relation
to
which
the
expenses
were
incurred.
It
is
clear
that
there
was
no
intention,
in
the
mind
of
the
appellant,
in
attending
these
meetings,
that
he
should
make
a
direct
profit
therefrom.
The
contention
is
that,
while
there
was
no
immediate
profit,
nevertheless
his
prestige,
which
would
have
been
maintained
or
increased
by
reason
of
attending
these
meetings,
would
eventually
lead
to
gaining
or
producing
profit
in
the
future.
It
seems
to
me
that
such
is
too
remote
for
consideration.
The
case
was
very
ably
and
exhaustively
argued
by
Mr.
Fleming,
Q.C.,
of
counsel
for
appellant,
to
which
I
have
given
my
best
consideration,
but
I
am
bound
to
conclude
that
the
very
able
judgment
of
Mr.
Monet
is
convincing
and
sound.
Consequently,
there
is
no
valid
ground
for
allowing
the
appeal.
The
appeal
will,
therefore,
be
dismissed
with
costs
taxed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content