Décary
J.A.:
This
appeal
raises
the
issue
of
the
taxation
of
the
amounts
an
employee
residing
in
a
northern
zone
receives
as
reimbursement
for
the
costs
of
transporting
food
that
cannot
be
purchased
locally.
The
judge
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
concluded
that
these
amounts
were
a
taxable
“benefit”
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
6(1)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
A
few
months
before
the
judgment
impugned
in
the
case
at
bar,
there
was
a
similar
decision
on
this
issue
by
Judge
Dussault
in
Leduc
(Succession
de)
v.
R.,
[1996]
I
C.T.C.
2873,
and
in
our
view,
the
reasons
for
that
decision
are
compelling.
Relying
on
the
recent
decision
of
this
Court
in
Guay
v.
The
Queen,
[1997]
216
N.R.
101
(F.C.A.)
the
appellant
argued
that
reimbursing
the
costs
of
transporting
food
was
not
a
taxable
benefit
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
6(1)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
This
decision
is
of
no
assistance
in
the
case
at
bar.
That
case
involved
the
extraordinary
expenses
which
rotational
employees
of
the
Department
of
Foreign
Affairs
and
International
Trade
incurred
to
ensure
their
children
would
be
educated
in
Canada
in
a
manner
consistent
with
the
education
available
during
their
overseas
posting.
Furthermore,
those
employees
received
no
tax
relief
similar
to
that
available
to
residents
of
northern
zones
under
section
110.7
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
If
the
allowable
deduction
under
the
Act,
or
the
salaries,
allowances
and
bonuses
granted
by
employers,
are
insufficient,
it
is
up
to
Parliament
and
the
parties
involved
to
change
them,
not
the
courts.
In
the
particular
circumstances
of
this
matter,
we
are
of
the
view
that
this
is
not
a
case
for
costs.
The
appeal
will
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content