16 March 1995 Internal T.I. 9432377 - BRODA CHAIR & LUMEX GEL CUSHION AS A MEDICAL EXPENSE

Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the CRA.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle de l'ARC.

Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.

Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.

Principal Issues:

Broda chair and Lumex gel cushion as a medical expense

Position TAKEN:

the model of broda chair with wheels would qualify as a wheelchair but the glider model would not
to the extent that the cushion forms an integral part of the customized wheelchair would also qualify as medical expense

Reasons FOR POSITION TAKEN:

a wheelchair is not restricted to the conventional chair considered to be a wheelchair. In the case of power scooters, we previously clarified that a chair with wheels which replaces a conventional wheelchair qualifies as such. The brochure on the Broda chair suggests it is more closely akin to what is ordinarily considered a wheelchair. In this particular case, the wheelchair is used to restrict mobility -however, there is no purpose test involved in determining whether a wheelchair qualifies as a medical expense under 118.2(2)(i)

		March 16, 1995
	Surrey Tax Centre	Rulings Directorate
	Client Services 542-71	A. Humenuk
		957-8953
	Attention: Anyta  Neustaedter
		943237

Broda Chair and Lumex Gel Cushion

We are replying to your memorandum of December 13, 1995 in which you ask whether a Broda chair or a Lumex gel cushion would qualify as a medical expense for the purpose of the medical expense tax credit.

The term "Broda chair" refers to a chair manufactured under the trademark "Broda". The chair was designed with input from health care professionals to provide greater comfort and safety to individuals confined to a chair for long periods of time. It comes with or without wheels and has many options such as slings, footrests, head and neck supports which enable the chair to be customized to meet the needs of a particular individual. We contacted several occupational therapists who are familiar with the chair and its uses and were advised that the chair is used primarily for geriatric patients in an extended care facility. We were also advised that its use is often recommended where a conventional wheelchair would not be suitable for the patient's needs.

In the particular case under review, the patient is suffering from a form of dementia and as a result, he is unable to recognize his own physical limitations. Thus a Broda chair equipped with restraining straps was recommended by his occupational therapist to prevent him from wandering and pacing to the point of physical exhaustion. The model purchased was not the model without wheels.

The Lumex gel cushion is ordered separately from the chair but is used with the chair to ensure that the patient does not develop pressure sores or other skin conditions caused by prolonged placement in one position. The occupational therapists which we consulted advise that a cushion of some type is recommended with any chair in which the patient cannot change positions on a regular basis.

As stated in our previous letter to you of December 15, 1993 concerning the eligibility of an electric scooter as a medical expense, the Department accepts that a chair with wheels qualifies as a "wheel chair" in circumstances where it is acquired in substitution for a conventional wheel chair. The Tax Review Board in Overdyk v MNR (83 DTC 307) accepted the view that the term "wheel chair" is not necessarily restricted in its reference to the conventional arm-powered or battery-powered wheel chair as most of us envision. In our view it is not relevant that the chair was acquired to restrict rather than to enhance the patient's mobility.

While we were advised that the glider model of a Broda chair meets a specific medical need in a particular circumstance, it is our view that such a chair without wheels would not fit paragraph 118.2(2)(i) of the Act as a wheel chair nor as a device described in paragraph 5700(i) of the Regulations to assist an individual in walking. The models which have wheels however, would qualify as a wheel chair and thus as a medical expense for the purpose of the medical expense tax credit.

It is our view that a cushion purchased from an alternate supplier in substitution for the cushion which would otherwise be provided by the manufacturer would be considered a modification or accessory to the basic model wheel chair, forming part of the wheel chair so purchased, where it is necessary to the use of the wheel chair. As such, the cushion would be considered part of the cost of the wheel chair and qualify as an eligible medical expense under paragraph 118.2(2)(i) of the Act.

P.D. Fuoco
Section Chief
Personal and General Section
Business and General Division
Rulings Directorate
Policy and Legislation Branch