Docket: 2009-242(IT)I
BETWEEN:
WALLACE B. BINGLEY,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal
heard on December 11, 2009, at Sydney, Nova Scotia
Before: The Honourable
Justice Valerie Miller
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The
Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Shannon Williams
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the reassessment made under the Income
Tax Act for the 2004 taxation years is dismissed in accordance with the
attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada,
this 19th day of January
2010.
“V.A. Miller”
Citation: 2010TCC34
Date: 20100119
Docket: 2009-242(IT)I
BETWEEN:
WALLACE B. BINGLEY,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
V.A. Miller, J.
[1]
The Appellant has
appealed the reassessment of his 2004 taxation year. The issue in this appeal
is whether the Appellant is entitled to deduct motor vehicle travel expenses in
accordance with paragraph 8(1)(h.1) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”).
[2]
When he filed his
income tax return for 2004, the Appellant claimed motor vehicle expenses in the
amount of $1,351. In 2007, he requested that the claim for motor vehicle
expenses be increased to $7,154. The Minister of National Revenue (the
“Minister”) did not agree to the Appellant’s request; and, the Appellant was
reassessed to disallow the amount of $1,351 that was claimed initially. At the
hearing of this appeal, the Appellant stated that the amount of $7,154 which he
had claimed was incorrect. He submitted a list of the places where he worked in
2004 with the mileage that he drove. He was not able to quantify the motor
vehicle expenses which he was now claiming.
[3]
In 1998 the Appellant
was hired, on a casual basis, as an engineer with the Canadian Coast Guard
(“CCG”). He became an indeterminate (permanent) employee of the CCG in October
2005.
[4]
As a casual employee,
the Appellant received a “Letter of Offer of Casual Employment” for each period
that he worked. He was stationed on only one ship during each period and it was
necessary for the Appellant to travel from his home to the location where the
ship was docked.
[5]
Paragraph 8(1)(h.1)
of the Act reads as follows:
8. (1) Deductions
allowed -- In computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from an
office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as
are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as
may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto:
(h.1) motor vehicle travel expenses -- where the taxpayer, in the year,
(i) was ordinarily required to
carry on the duties of the office or employment away from the employer's place
of business or in different places, and
(ii) was required under the
contract of employment to pay motor vehicle expenses incurred in the
performance of the duties of the office or employment,
amounts expended by the taxpayer
in the year in respect of motor vehicle expenses incurred for travelling in the
course of the office or employment, except where the taxpayer
(iii) received an allowance for
motor vehicle expenses that was, because of paragraph 6(1)(b), not
included in computing the taxpayer's income for the year, or
(iv) claims a
deduction for the year under paragraph (f);
[6]
In order to meet the requirements
in paragraph 8(1)(h.1), an employee must (a) ordinarily be required to
perform his duties away from his employer’s place of business or in different places;
(b) be required, under his contract of employment, to pay for his own motor
vehicle expenses; and (c) have incurred the motor vehicle expenses while
traveling in the course of his duties.
[7]
In the present appeal, the
Appellant entered into a new contract of employment for each period that he
worked for the CCG. In each period, he was offered work in a particular place.
As an example, he tendered a “Letter of Offer of Casual Employment” dated
September 20, 2004 in which he was offered and accepted work as an “engineering
officer” at Clarks Harbour for the period September 20, 2004 to
September 27, 2004.
[8]
Each time that the Appellant
worked for CCG in 2004, he was hired to work on a ship in a particular place.
Any travel that he did to reach the ship was not in the course of his duties,
but was personal travel to go to work.
[9]
The Appellant has not satisfied
the requirements of paragraph 8(1)(h.1). The appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa,
Canada, this 19th day of January 2010.
“V.A. Miller”
CITATION: 2010TCC34
COURT FILE NO.: 2009-242(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: WALLACE B. BINGLEY AND
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Sydney, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: December 11, 2009
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Justice Valerie Miller
DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 19, 2010
APPEARANCES:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Shannon Williams
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content