[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 20020124
Docket: 2001-15(IT)I
BETWEEN:
MONIQUE LAJEUNESSE-LEBEL,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Lamarre Proulx, J.T.C.C.
[1] This is an appeal under the
informal procedure for the 1999 taxation year. The issue is
whether, for the purposes of the medical expense tax credit, the
appellant can claim natural medications representing in total
$4,398 as "medical expenses" of the type described in
paragraph 118.2(2)(n) of the Income Tax Act
(the "Act").
[2] The facts on which the Minister of
National Revenue (the "Minister") relied in making the
reassessment are set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Reply
to the Notice of Appeal (the "Reply") as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
(4) On
December 11, 2000, the Minister increased the
appellant's allowable medical expenses by $920 by issuing a
reassessment for the 1999 taxation year.
(5) In making the
reassessment in issue, the Minister made, in particular, the
following assumptions of fact:
(a) the appellant
disbursed the sum of $5,318 in expenses for naturopathic
care;
(b) that amount of
$5,318 included $920 for naturopathic consultation and $4,398 for
so-called natural medications;
(c) the
so-called natural medications were not purchased by the
appellant as prescribed by a medical practitioner or dentist, or
recorded by a pharmacist.
[3] The grounds for appeal as
described in the notice of appeal are as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
1- a
polymyalgia rheumatica was diagnosed in January 1998 (see
letter from my physician, Dr. Boisselle);
2- injections
of corticosteroids and anti-inflammatories were suggested and
administered to me, but produced no curative or analgesic effect,
although they caused serious negative side effects and would have
caused other long-term side effects (see appended leaflet from
the Arthritis Society);
3- in view of
that situation, I turned to alternative treatments such as
acupuncture, homeopathy and, lastly, naturopathy. After two years
of naturopathic treatment, I now feel very good and my quality of
life is beyond comparison.
This of course has come at an astronomical cost, although I
have no regrets. However, I would appreciate a little
encouragement from the federal government, which proclaims that
every citizen is entitled to health service that is adequate to
ensure his or her well-being.
Why alternative medicines?
- to enjoy a good quality of
life and independence;
- to avoid physical and
psychological problems often caused by the chemical drugs
prescribed by traditional medicine (among others, those related
to cortisone: see appended leaflet from the Arthritis
Society);
- to take charge of my life by
going to see a naturopath.
For these reasons, I ask that natural medications,
like chemical drugs, qualify as allowable medical
expenses where the amount involved is high in relation to
salary.
[4] The appellant testified, filing as
Exhibit A-1 a letter dated November 7, 2000, from
her attending physician, Dr. Diane Boisselle. That
letter reads as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
To whom it may concern,
The patient was diagnosed with a polymyalgia rheumatica in
January 1998. She has received corticosteroid injections and
NSAIDs.
As a result of persistent side effects from the drugs,
Ms. Lajeunesse turned to alternative medicines. She has
responded very well to treatment and has been in biological
remission since the end of 1998. She is still receiving
naturopathic monitoring.
[5] As Exhibit A-2, the
appellant filed a document from the Arthritis Society on
corticosteroids, describing the use of those drugs and their
possible side effects.
[6] The appellant explained that, in
her case, corticosteroids mainly produced side effects, without
having the desired beneficial effects. That was when she turned
to naturopathy.
[7] Interpretation
Bulletin IT-519R2, entitled "Medical Expense and
Disability Tax Credits and Attendant Care Expense
Deduction", describes in paragraph 61 the categories of
drugs the cost of which may qualify as medical expenses:
Drugs, medicaments and other preparations or
substances
61. For purposes of
calculating the medical expense tax credit, there are two
categories of drugs, medicaments or other preparations or
substances (other than those included in the account of a medical
practitioner (see 3 above) or hospital) the cost of which may
qualify as medical expenses :
(a) the substances,
mentioned in paragraph 118.2(2)(k) (insulin, oxygen and,
for pernicious anaemia, liver extract and vitamin B12) which, for
purposes of this paragraph, a medical practitioner must have
prescribed, but which a pharmacy or any other type of store may
sell without a written prescription; and
(b) the drugs (and
other items), referred to in paragraph 118.2(2)(n), which
a medical practitioner or dentist must have prescribed, and which
must be purchased from a pharmacist who has recorded the
prescription in a prescription record.
[8] Paragraphs 118.2(2)(a)
and (n) of the Act read as follows:
(2) Medical expenses - For the purposes of subsection
(1), a medical expense of an individual is an amount paid:
(a) to
a medical practitioner, dentist or nurse or a public or licensed
private hospital in respect of medical or dental services
provided to a person (in this subsection referred to as the
"patient") who is the individual, the individual's
spouse or common-law partner or a dependant of the individual
(within the meaning assigned by subsection 118(6)) in the
taxation year in which the expense was incurred;
. . .
(n) for
drugs, medicaments or other preparations or substances (other
than those described in paragraph (k)) manufactured, sold
or represented for use in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention
of a disease, disorder, abnormal physical state, or the symptoms
thereof or in restoring, correcting or modifying an organic
function, purchased for use by the patient as prescribed by a
medical practitioner or dentist and as recorded by a
pharmacist;
[Emphasis added.]
[9] Counsel for the respondent
referred to this Court's decisions in Mongillo v.
Canada, [1994] T.C.J. No. 831 (Q.L.), and
Williams v. Canada, [1997] T.C.J. No. 1346
(Q.L.). I cite paragraph 13 from the latter decision:
13
The costs incurred for the purchase of vitamin and mineral
supplements and other natural foods are not medical expenses.
Paragraph 118.2(2)(n) of the Act provides that only
expenses incurred for drugs, medicaments and other preparations
or substances purchased for use by the patient as prescribed by a
medical practitioner and as recorded by a pharmacist can be so
claimed. With respect to these expenses, none of the purchases
were recorded by a pharmacist. See for example Mongillo v. The
Queen, 95 D.T.C. 199. . . .
[10] Counsel for the respondent explained to
the Court that the expenses relating to a naturopath were allowed
under paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act. He
explained in writing that, [translation] "although the terms
used by Parliament in paragraph 118.2(2)(a) refer
specifically to amounts paid to 'a medical practitioner,
dentist or nurse or a public or licensed private
hospital . . .', the Minister is of the
opinion that other health professionals, depending on the
province or the jurisdiction concerned, may meet the same
requirements. Accordingly, the Minister considers that the
expenses incurred for naturopaths qualify, even though
naturopaths are not physicians, where those expenses are paid for
medical services, to the extent that the expenses were incurred
for diagnostic, therapeutic or rehabilitation services."
[11] The appellant stated that, since the
Minister had previously allowed her expenses for consulting a
naturopath, she did not understand why the so-called
natural medications recommended by that same naturopath did not
qualify as tax deductible medical expenses.
Conclusion
[12] The meaning given to "drugs,
medicaments or other preparations or substances" in
paragraph 118.2(2)(n) of the Act requires that
two essential conditions be met: that they be purchased as
prescribed by a medical practitioner and as recorded by a
pharmacist. In the instant case, there is no doubt, and it was
admitted by the parties, that the medicaments or preparations in
question here were not recorded by a pharmacist in his register
at the time of their purchase.
[13] The appeal must accordingly be
dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 24th day of January 2002.
J.T.C.C.
Email this Content