Guy
Tremblay
[TRANSLATION]:—This
case
was
heard
in
Montreal,
Quebec
on
February
20,
1978.
1.
Point
at
Issue
The
question
the
Board
must
decide
is
whether
the
money
spent
by
the
appellant
to
purchase
and
maintain
a
guard
dog
may
be
allowed
in
calculating
his
income
for
the
1975
taxation
year.
The
appellant,
a
wage
earner,
is
a
bank
manager,
and
the
dog
was
bought
at
the
recommendation
of
the
police
for
his
protection
and
that
of
his
family.
2.
Burden
of
Proof
The
burden
is
on
the
appellant
to
prove
that
the
respondent’s
assessment
is
incorrect.
This
burden
of
proof
derives
not
from
one
particular
section
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
but
from
a
number
of
judicial
decisions,
including
the
judgment
delivered
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
in
R
W
S
Johnston
v
MNR,
[1948]
CTC
195;
3
DTC
1182.
3.
Facts
3.1
The
appellant
is
the
manager
of
a
branch
of
a
banking
institution
and
a
wage
earner.
3.2
In
recent
years
two
persons
were
killed
in
hostage-taking
incidents
involving
employees
of
this
bank.
3.3
The
Montreal
police
department
set
up
a
special
squad
to
deal
with
such
crimes.
3.4
This
squad
recommended
to
senior
bank
employees
that
they
purchase
a
guard
dog
and
install
an
outside
lighting
system
at
the
front
and
back
of
their
houses
for
the
protection
of
themselves
and
their
families.
3.5
The
appellant
spent
$433,
including
$75
for
a
Labrador
sheep
dog
in
the
1975
taxation
year,
to
carry
out
these
recommendations.
3.6
The
contract
of
employment
did
not
require
the
use
of
such
preventive
measures.
3.7
The
respondent
disallowed
these
expenses
in
his
notice
of
assessment
dated
June
14,
1976.
3.8
On
August
2,
1976,
the
appellant
filed
a
notice
of
objection
to
which
the
respondent
replied
on
January
28,
1977,
upholding
his
notice
of
assessment
dated
June
14,
1976.
3.9
On
February
7,
1977
the
appellant
appealed
to
the
Tax
Review
Board.
4.
Act
Because
the
appellant
was
a
wage
earner,
the
only
deductions
that
can
be
included
in
calculating
his
income
are
those
provided
for
in
section
8,
as
set
out
by
subsection
8(2)
of
the
new
Act:
8.
(2)
General
limitation.
Except
as
permitted
by
this
section,
no
deduction
shall
be
made
in
computing
a
taxpayer’s
income
for
a
taxation
year
from
an
office
or
employment.
Although
some
deductions
provided
for
by
sections
60
to
66
of
the
new
Act
(alimony
payments,
tuition
fees,
and
so
on)
may
also
be
included
in
calculating
a
wage
earner’s
income,
these
sections
do
not
apply
in
the
case
ai
bar.
To
return
to
section
8,
only
paragraph
8(1)(a)
applies:
8.
(1)
(a)
Deductions
of
a
single
amount
of
$150
(or
3%,
and
so
on)
for
any
employment.
This
single
amount
was
allowed.
The
following
are
the
titles
summarizing
the
content
of
the
other
subsections
of
section
8,
which
demonstrate
that
they
do
not
apply
to
the
case
at
bar:
8.
(1)
(b)
legal
expenses
of
employee;
(c)
clergyman’s
residence;
(d)
teachers’
exchange
fund
contribution;
(e)
expenses
of
certain
railway
company
employees;
(f)
salesman’s
expenses;
(g)
transport
employee’s
expenses;
(h)
travelling
expenses;
(i)
dues
and
other
expenses
of
performing
duties;
(j)
automobile
costs;
(k)
unemployment
insurance
premium;
(l)
and
(1.1)
contribution;
(m)
and
(8.6)
contribution
to
registered
pension
plan;
2)
and
(3)
certain
limitations;
(4)
meals;
(5)
certain
annual
dues
not
deductible;
(7)
teachers;
(8)
employees’
contributions
to
pension
fund
for
arrears.
5.
Comments
The
appellant’s
chief
argument
is
that
the
morality
squad’s
recommendation
was
justified
and
that,
according
to
the
rules
of
equity,
he
should
be
allowed
the
expense
claimed
to
protect
his
life
and
that
of
his
family.
Although
the
Board
sympathizes
with
this
opinion,
it
unfortunately
cannot
legally
give
effect
to
it.
The
Board
must
interpret
the
wording
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
as
it
stands,
not
as
it
should
be.
If
the
appellant
thinks
that
this
section
is
in
need
of
change,
he
will
no
doubt
be
further
ahead
seeking
to
have
the
Act
changed
by
Parliament
than
applying
to
a
court
of
law
for
a
deduction
that
the
Act
does
not
allow.
6.
Conclusion
The
appeal
is
dismissed
in
accordance
with
the
above
reasons
for
judgment.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content