Simpson
J.:-This
case
concerns
the
deductibility
of
an
air
conditioner
as
a
medical
expense.
To
qualify
for
the
deduction
under
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-
71-72,
c.
63)
(the
’’Act”),
the
air
conditioner
must
be
prescribed
by
a
medical
practitioner
and
must
be
accepted
by
the
Minister
as
a
device
or
item
of
equipment
that
is
"designed
to
assist
a
crippled
individual
in
walking”.
On
the
unusual
facts
of
this
case,
it
was
agreed
that
the
air
conditioner
was
prescribed
by
a
physician
and
that
it
did,
in
fact,
assist
a
disabled
individual
in
walking.
However,
the
Minister
disallowed
the
deduction.
The
Tax
Court
of
Canada
upheld
this
decision
on
the
basis
that,
although
it
may
have
played
a
legitimate
medical
role,
the
air
conditioner
was
not
"designed”
to
assist
a
disabled
person
tc
walk.
The
The
facts
Mr.
Nigel
E.
Brown
is
the
appellant.
This
appeal
from
the
Tax
Court’s
decision
comes
before
me
by
way
of
trial
de
novo.
The
Tax
Court’s
reasons
for
judgment
of
October
28,
1988
include
a
detailed
summary
of
the
evidence
which
has
been
accepted
by
the
parties
before
me.
I
have
therefore
adopted
it
for
the
purposes
of
this
decision.
I
should
note,
however,
that
Mrs.
Brown
has
died
since
the
Tax
Court’s
reasons
were
prepared.
Sarchuk
J.T.C.C.
summarized
the
facts
as
follows:
Mary
Christine
Brown
is
the
wife
of
the
appellant
and
is
at
the
present
time
43
years
old.
In
1983
she
was
diagnosed
as
having
multiple
sclerosis
and
has
been
unable
to
work
since
that
time.
As
a
result
of
her
illness
she
has
a
major
problem
with
mobility
and
is
seriously
affected
by
heat.
When
it
is
hot
and
humid
she
becomes
extremely
tired
and
fatigued
and
has
increased
difficulty
in
moving.
Her
chance
discovery
that
the
cold
air
of
an
ice
arena
reduced
her
discomfort
and
added
to
her
mobility
led
to
consultations
with
her
doctor,
Dr.
Trevor
A.
Gray,
and
to
the
ultimate
purchase
of
an
air
conditioner
in
1984.
As
a
result
of
installing
the
air
conditioning
unit
Mary
Brown’s
mobility
has
been
improved.
As
she
stated,
without
the
unit
she
would
not
be
able
to
function
and
might
require
outside
attendance;
with
it
she
can
function
"near
normal".
Dr.
Gray
is
a
neurologist,
Chief
of
Neurology
and
Director
of
the
Multiple
Sclerosis
Clinic
at
St.
Michael’s
Hospital
in
Toronto.
He
is
an
associate
professor,
Department
of
Medicine,
University
of
Toronto,
and
is
the
author
of
a
number
of
publications
and
papers
on
the
subject
of
multiple
sclerosis.
Mary
Brown
has
been
a
patient
of
his
at
the
Multiple
Sclerosis
Clinic
since
October
1983.
His
evidence,
which
follows,
was
not
challenged.
Multiple
sclerosis
is
a
progressive
degenerative
disease
of
the
nervous
system.
It
is
not
a
disease
of
the
respiratory
system.
The
disease
process
is
one
by
which
the
protective
nerve
coating
or
"myelin",
which
serves
to
insulate
the
nerve,
breaks
down.
This
demyelination
leaves
the
nerve
exposed
to
a
variety
of
nerve
impulse
conduction
disturbances
which
manifest
in
weakness,
sensory
and
visual
disturbances,
incoordination
with
loss
of
balance,
and
bladder
and
bowel
disturbances,
to
name
but
a
few.
Changes
in
environmental
temperature
have
an
obvious
effect
on
people
with
multiple
sclerosis.
Clinical
investigation
has
confirmed
that
in
many
patients
the
physical
signs
of
malfunction
of
demyelinated
nerves
show
a
remarkable
sensitivity
to
recorded
changes
in
temperature.
At
one
time,
raising
the
environmental
temperature
by
warm
bathing
was
used
as
a
diagnostic
tool
for
the
diagnosis
of
multiple
sclerosis.
A
worsening
of
symptoms
following
warming
is
known
to
be
an
indication
of
neural
damage
by
demyelination.
It
is
believed
that
a
temperature
increase
shortens
the
action
potential
duration
of
the
nerve
fibre.
Small
temperature
increases
can
create
a
conduction
blockade
preventing
the
flow
of
action
current
necessary
for
the
transmission
of
nerve
impulses.
This
in
turn
results
in
a
worsening
of
symptoms.
The
effect
is
a
temporary
one.
Conduction
is
resumed
when
the
temperature
is
lowered.
While
not
all
people
who
suffer
from
multiple
sclerosis
are
heat
intolerant,
summertime
can
be
markedly
disabling
for
many.
Many
patients
take
cool
showers
several
times
a
day
to
improve
their
neurological
function.
The
impact
of
taking
a
shower
is
short-lived
however,
and
the
necessity
of
repeatedly
taking
a
shower
is
inherently
disabling
since
it
precludes
other
activity.
A
controlled
temperature
is
the
ideal
treatment
for
such
persons.
Other
than
repeatedly
taking
cool
showers,
the
installation
of
an
air
conditioner
in
a
patient’s
home
may
be
the
only
effective
treatment
which
a
physician
can
prescribe.
There
are
drugs
under
development
which
are
said
to
simulate
the
impact
of
cooling
the
external
environment
for
the
patient.
Unfortunately
these
drugs
have
toxic
side
effects
and
therefore
cannot
always
be
prescribed
as
an
alternative.
Dr.
Gray
was
of
the
view
that
Mrs.
Brown
was
well
advised
to
install
an
air
conditioner
since
it
could
and
did
alleviate
the
heat
induced
symptoms
she
had
been
experiencing.
He
felt
it
would
assist
her
to
be
able
to
walk
and
according
to
her,
she
has
been
mobile
and
been
able
to
walk
during
the
summer
months,
something
she
could
not
have
achieved
without
the
air
conditioner.
Evidence
was
also
adduced
from
Dr.
Bert
Stewart
Hall.
He
is
an
historian
with
a
Ph.D.
from
the
University
of
California,
Los
Angeles.
Currently
he
is
an
assistant
professor
at
the
Institute
for
the
History
and
Philosophy
of
Technology
at
the
University
of
Toronto,
specializing
in
the
history
of
technology.
Following
a
request
from
the
appellant,
Dr.
Hall
researched
the
history
of
air
conditioning
units
and
synthetic
speech
systems,
two
technical
devices
which
ameliorate
a
person’s
disability
and
which
are
referred
to
section
5700
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations.
The
history
of
air
conditioning
is
technologically
indistinguishable
from
the
history
of
mechanical
refrigeration
systems.
Both
share
in
the
same
technological
base
and
have
the
same
point
of
origin
in
the
historical
record.
In
the
mid
1840s
a
physician
practicing
in
Florida,
Dr.
John
Gorrie,
became
convinced
that
his
patients
would
benefit
from
a
therapy
that
cooled
the
air
in
their
hospital
rooms.
He
initially
used
containers
filled
with
ice
suspended
in
the
hospital
rooms
as
part
of
the
ventilation
system.
Encouraged
by
the
clinical
results
of
his
early
trials,
Gorrie
sought
to
supplant,
by
a
simple
mechanical
system,
the
expensive
ice.
Using
a
second
hand
steam
engine,
he
developed
a
mechanical
cooling
device
that
used
ordinary
air
compressed
to
a
pressure
of
several
atmospheres.
Despite
the
simplicity
of
Gorrie’s
mechanics
and
the
inefficiency
of
air
as
a
working
fluid
in
such
an
application,
the
early
air
conditioning
effort
was
a
success.
Indeed,
one
night
in
the
summer
of
1845
someone
in
his
employ
failed
to
regulate
the
speed
of
the
steam
engine
and
the
following
morning
the
cold
air
pipes
were
found
to
be
clogged
with
ice.
The
water
vapour
in
ordinary
air
had
been
frozen
into
ice
by
the
unregulated
Gorrie
machine.
Gorrie
has
been
honoured
a
number
of
times
and
is
identified
in
the
United
States
as
the
father
of
all
modern
air
conditioning
and
mechanical
refrigeration
systems.
Although
he
considered
commercial
applications
for
his
theories,
he
was
not
successful
in
these
ventures,
nor
did
he
patent
the
device.
Since
that
time
the
technology
pioneered
by
him
has
gone
through
many
refinements
motivated
by
a
host
of
commercial
and
other
objectives.
As
Dr.
Hall
noted,
it
is
difficult
to
pinpoint
any
one
point
of
origin
or
to
state
that
there
is
any
one
intended
application
for
such
technology.
Dr.
Hall
also
testified
with
respect
to
computer
connected
synthetic
speech
systems
which
are
referred
to
in
paragraph
5700(o)
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations.
His
research
once
again
indicated
that
there
was
no
single
point
of
origin
for
such
systems.
There
has
been
very
broad
interest
in
developing
a
means
for
allowing
humans
to
communicate
with
computers
by
voice
and
researchers
have
received
financial
support
from
a
variety
of
sources,
not
the
least
of
which
are
space
or
military
sources.
Dr.
Hall
spoke
of
a
group
working,
with
partial
funding
from
the
United
States
military,
at
the
Massachusetts
Institute
for
Technology
in
Boston
on
a
functional
reading
machine
which
could
be
used
by
blind
persons.
He
said
that
even
the
work
of
this
group
could
not
be
defined
as
"designed
exclusively
to
be
used
by
a
blind
individual"
because
such
research
is
funded
through
a
wide
variety
of
sources
and
with
as
many
commercial
applications
as
possible
in
mind.
Because
space,
military
and
commercial
applications
for
technology
tend
to
attract
more
resources
it
is
common
for
technologies
to
be
developed
with
these
purposes
in
mind
and
it
is
only
later
that
they
may
be
turned
to
other
purposes
such
as
assisting
disabled
persons
to
overcome
their
handicaps.
Additional
facts
came
to
light
during
the
hearing
before
me.
Mr.
Brown
testified
that
he
purchased
the
air
conditioner
in
October
1984
and
had
it
installed
at
that
time.
However,
he
arranged
to
pay
for
it
on
a
deferred
basis.
The
charge
therefore
appeared
on
his
Simpsons
Sears’
statement
dated
April
4,
1985.
He
believes
that
he
actually
paid
for
the
air
con-
ditioner
at
the
end
of
April,
because
it
was
his
normal
practice
to
pay
his
bills
at
the
end
of
each
month.
Dr.
Bert
Hall
again
testified
that
technological
research
is
often
funded
by
a
combination
of
scientific,
commercial
and
military
sources
in
the
hope
that
innovations
and
advances
will
have
applications
in
their
spheres
of
activity.
In
such
cases,
it
is
difficult
to
say
that
there
is
one
intended
application
for
new
technology.
It
is
also
the
case
that
new
technologies
tend
to
be
turned
to
purposes
such
as
assisting
disabled
persons,
only
after
their
primary
commercial
or
military
uses
have
been
exploited.
Although
air
conditioning
was
originally
developed
by
Dr.
Gorrie
to
improve
the
health
and
comfort
of
his
hospitalized
fever
patients,
it
was
the
refrigeration
aspect
of
his
work
rather
than
the
air
conditioning
which
received
early
attention.
This
was
because
refrigeration
had
important
commercial
uses.
Health
related
air
conditioning
did
not
become
common
until
the
1950s
when,
as
a
general
rule,
new
hospitals
were
constructed
with
air
conditioning.
Dr.
Gray’s
affidavit
evidence
includes
a
1959
article
from
The
New
England
Journal
of
Medicine
entitled
"Effect
of
Lowering
of
Body
Temperature
on
the
Symptoms
and
Signs
of
Multiple
Sclerosis".
The
study
concluded,
in
part,
that
"lowering
of
body
temperature
by
repeated
cooling
is
an
effective
means
of
providing
temporary
relief
of
disability
resulting
from
the
lesions
of
multiple
sclerosis".
Accordingly,
by
the
late
1950s,
it
was
known
that
lowering
body
temperature
provided
relief
for
heat
sensitive
multiple
sclerosis
patients.
This
is
significant
because
the
regulation
at
issue
(Regulation
5700(i))
was
not
promulgated
until
February
1975.
The
issue
The
broad
question
is
whether
the
appellant
properly
deducted
the
air
conditioner
as
a
medical
expense
in
his
income
tax
return
for
1985.
To
answer
the
question
regard
must
be
had
to
the
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1985
(5th
Supp.),
c.
1
(the
"Act")
which
were
in
force
for
1985.
Subparagraph
110(
1
)(c)(xii)
provided:
110(1)
For
the
purpose
of
computing
the
taxable
income
of
a
taxpayer
for
a
taxation
year,
there
may
be
deducted
such
of
the
following
amounts
as
are
applicable:
(c)
an
amount
equal
to
that
portion
of
medical
expenses
in
excess
of
three
per
cent
of
the
taxpayer’s
income
for
the
year
paid
either
by
the
taxpayer
or
his
legal
representatives...if
payment
was
made.
(xii)
for
any
device
or
equipment,
not
described
in
any
other
subparagraph
of
this
paragraph,
of
a
prescribed
kind,
for
use
by
the
taxpayer,
his
spouse
or
any
such
dependant
as
prescribed
by
such
a
medical
practitioner....
PART
LVII
MEDICAL
DEVICES
AND
EQUIPMENT
5700.
For
the
purposes
of
subparagraph
110(l)(c)(xii)
of
the
Act.
a
device
or
equipment
is
hereby
prescribed
if
it
is
a
(a)
wig
made
to
order
for
individuals
who
have
suffered
abnormal
hair
loss
owing
to
disease,
medical
treatment
or
accident;
(b)
needle
or
syringe
designed
to
be
used
for
the
purpose
of
giving
an
injection;
(c)
device
or
equipment,
including
a
replacement
part,
designed
exclusively
for
use
by
an
individual
who
is
suffering
from
a
chronic
respiratory
ailment
to
assist
him
in
breathing,
but
not
including
an
air
conditioner,
humidifier,
dehumidifier
or
air
cleaner;
(d)
device
or
equipment
designed
to
pace
or
monitor
the
heart
of
an
individual
who
suffers
from
heart
disease;
(e)
orthopedic
shoe
or
boot
and
an
insert
for
a
shoe
or
boot
made
to
order
for
an
individual
in
accordance
with
a
prescription
to
overcome
a
physical
disability
of
the
individual;
(f)
power-operated
guided
chair
installation,
for
an
individual,
that
is
designed
to
be
used
solely
in
a
stairway;
(g)
mechanical
device
or
equipment
designed
to
be
used
to
assist
an
individual
to
enter
or
leave
a
bathtub
or
shower
or
to
get
on
or
off
a
toilet;
(h)
hospital
bed
including
such
attachments
thereto
as
may
have
been
included
in
a
prescription
therefor;
(i)
device
not
described
in
subparagraph
110(l)(c)(ix)
of
the
Act
that
is
designed
to
assist
a
crippled
individual
in
walking;
(j)
external
breast
protheses
that
is
required
because
of
a
mastectomy;
(k)
teletypewriter
or
similar
device,
including
a
telephone
ringing
indicators,
that
enables
a
deaf
or
mute
individual
to
make
and
receive
telephone
calls;
(l)
optical
scanner
or
similar
device
designed
to
be
used
by
a
blind
individual,
to
enable
him
to
read
print;
or
(m)
power-operated
lift
designed
exclusively
for
use
by
a
disabled
individual
to
allow
him
access
to
different
levels
of
a
building
or
to
assist
him
to
gain
access
to
a
vehicle,
or
to
place
his
wheelchair
in
or
on
a
vehicle.
[Emphasis
added.]
The
narrow
question
is
one
of
statutory
interpretation.
On
the
facts
of
this
case
was
the
appellant’s
air
conditioner
"equipment
designed
to
assist
a
crippled
individual
in
walking"
within
the
meaning
of
Regulation
5700(1)
to
the
Act?
Discussion
The
Federal
Court
has
indicated
that
today
there
is
only
one
applicable
principle
for
guidance
in
the
interpretation
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
It
is
that
the
words
are
to
be
read
in
their
entire
context,
in
their
grammatical
and
ordinary
sense
and
harmoniously
with
the
scheme
of
the
Act,
the
object
of
the
Act,
and
the
intention
of
Parliament
(M.N.R.
v.
McLaren,
[1990]
2
C.T.C.
429,
90
D.T.C.
6566
(F.C.T.D.),
at
page
436
(D.T.C.
6572).
As
well,
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
has
said:
In
Stubart
Investments
Ltd.
v.
The
Queen,
[1984]
1
S.C.R.
536,
[1984]
C.T.C.
294,
84
D.T.C.
6305,
at
pages
573-79
(C.T.C.
313-17;
D.T.C.
6321-24),
the
Court
recognized
that
in
the
construction
of
taxation
statutes
the
law
is
not
confined
to
a
literal
and
virtually
meaningless
interpretation
of
the
Act
where
the
words
will
support
on
a
broader
construction
a
conclusion
which
is
workable
and
in
harmony
with
the
evident
purposes
of
the
Act
in
question.
Strict
construction
in
the
historic
sense
no
longer
finds
a
place
in
the
canons
of
interpretation
applicable
to
taxation
statutes
in
an
area
such
as
the
present,
where
taxation
serves
many
purposes
in
addition
to
the
old
and
traditional
object
of
raising
the
cost
of
government
from
a
somewhat
unenthusiastic
public
(Golden
v.
The
Queen,
[1986]
1
S.C.R.
209,
[1986]
1
C.T.C.
274,
86
D.T.C.
6138
at
page
214-15
(C.T.C.
277,
D.T.C.
6140).
What
then
is
the
immediate
context
for
the
word
design?
It
is
used
in
two
ways
in
the
paragraphs
to
Regulation
5700.
In
three
paragraphs
it
is
modified
by
the
words
"exclusively"
or
"solely".
In
five
other
paragraphs,
including
paragraph
(i),
which
is
at
issue,
the
word
design
is
used
without
the
modifier.
The
absence
of
the
word
exclusively
suggests
that
more
than
one
purpose
may
have
been
involved
in
the
design
and
that
the
design
need
not
have
been
focused
on
a
precise
objective.
The
second
contextual
point
is
that
Regulation
5700
deals
entirely
with
medical
matters
and
relates
back
to
section
110
of
the
Act
which
also
considers
medical
matters
in
great
detail.
It
is
clear
that
the
authors
of
paragraph
110(
l)(c)
and
Regulation
5700
had
the
benefit
of
medical
expertise.
Thirdly,
Regulation
5700
is
not
a
taxing
provision
directed
to
raising
revenues.
Rather,
it
is
included
in
a
part
of
the
Act
directed
to
benefiting
certain
taxpayers
by
providing
some
relief
from
taxation
in
the
form
of
deductions
for
medical
expenses.
Further,
the
paragraphs
of
Regulation
5700
are
all
drafted
in
very
narrow
and
precise
terms
with
the
objective
of
ensuring,
in
my
view,
that
only
purchases
made
to
address
specific
medical
conditions
are
properly
deductible.
Finally,
one
should
not
assume
that
Regulation
5700(i)
is
intended
to
deal
only
with
the
obvious
physical
devices
used
to
assist
the
disabled
in
walking.
The
deductibility
of
many
such
items
1.e.,
canes,
crutches
and
braces
is
separately
addressed
in
subparagraph
110(
1
)(c)(ix)
of
the
Act.
Dictionary
meanings
Reference
was
made
to
a
number
of
dictionaries
for
the
meaning
of
the
word
design
(collectively
"the
definitions").
The
definitions
establish
that
design
means
"plan
or
conceive"
of
something
intended
for
subsequent
execution.
It
also
means
to
invent
something
or
to
intend
something
for
a
specific
purpose.
Based
on
the
definitions,
I
am
able
to
accept
the
appellant’s
submission
that
"intended"
can
reasonably
be
substituted
for
"designed"
when
the
word
designed
appears
in
Regulation
5700.
However,
the
appellant
goes
further
and
argues
that
the
relevant
intention
is
that
of
the
taxpayer.
The
appellant
submits
that,
because
he
purchased
the
air
conditioner
with
the
intention
of
assisting
his
wife
to
walk
(and
this
fact
is
not
disputed)
he
is
entitled
to
the
deduction.
I
am
unable
to
accept
this
subjective
approach.
It
appears
to
me
that
such
an
approach
is
not
in
harmony
with
the
restrictive
and
precise
wording
found
in
all
the
paragraphs
to
Regulation
5700.
In
my
mind,
in
Regulation
5700(1),
the
relevant
design
or
intention
may
be
the
one
formed
by
the
original
inventor
or
creator
of
the
equipment
or
may
be
the
design
or
intention
of
a
person
who
more
recently
modified
an
earlier
invention
or
discovered
its
application
it
for
a
new
purpose.
My
finding
in
this
regard
depends
on
the
use
of
the
present
tense
in
Regulation
5700(i).
The
question
in
this
case
is
whether
Dr.
Gorrie
designed
or
intended
his
air
conditioner
to
assist
a
disabled
person
in
walking.
This
need
not
have
been
his
sole
or
precise
objective
because
the
word
"exclusively"
does
not
appear
in
Regulation
5700(1).
The
evidence
disclosed
that
Dr.
Gorrie
designed
the
air
conditioner
to
lower
his
patients’
body
temperatures
so
that
they
could
function
normally
and
it
is
that
same
design
objective,
being
reduction
in
body
temperature,
that
assisted
Mrs.
Brown.
Dr.
Gorrie’s
patients
were
hospitalized
for
fevers
and
were
disabled
in
the
sense
that,
due
to
illness,
they
had
lost
their
mobility.
One
of
Dr.
Gorrie’s
objectives
would
have
been
to
restore
that
mobility.
In
this
case,
counsel
for
the
Crown
accepted
that
Regulation
5700(1)
applies
to
those
who
are
intermittently
crippled
by
disease.
No
argument
was
made
to
the
effect
that
Mrs.
Brown
was
not
crippled
within
the
meaning
of
the
regulation.
Based
on
this
evidence
and
the
application
of
the
principle
of
broader
construction
advocated
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
(Golden,
supra),
I
am
able
to
conclude
that
the
air
conditioner
was
indeed
designed
to
assist
a
crippled
person
in
walking
as
that
language
is
used
in
the
Act.
To
summarize,
the
air
conditioner
was
developed
in
a
medical
context,
it
was
designed
to
lower
body
temperature
and
thereby
assist
in
the
restoration
of
normal
health
and
normal
health
includes
mobility.
The
appel-
lant
therefore
acquired
and
used
the
air
conditioner
for
the
general
purpose
for
which
it
was
designed.
However,
the
Crown
argues
that
air
conditioners
cannot
have
been
intended
for
inclusion
under
paragraph
5700(i)
because
they
are
expressly
excluded
in
Regulation
5700(c)
as
deductible
items
for
those
with
chronic
respiratory
ailments.
The
Crown
asks
why,
as
a
matter
of
common
sense,
would
the
Act
refuse
deductions
for
air
conditioners
to
those
who
have
chronic
respiratory
ailments
and
allow
them
when
they
assist
disabled
persons
to
walk?
The
answer
may
be
that
there
are
many
taxpayers
with
chronic
respiratory
ailments
who
would
benefit
to
some
degree
from
air
conditioning
and
whose
doctors
would
prescribe
this
equipment,
if
asked
to
do
so.
I
have
made
this
inference
because
paragraph
5700(c)
does
not
contain
a
requirement
for
a
severe
ailment.
Even
mild
respiratory
ailments
would
seem
to
be
caught
by
the
paragraph
as
long
as
they
are
chronic.
Since
the
class
of
sufferer
is
broadly
defined,
it
is
consistent
with
the
restricted
and
precise
nature
of
the
paragraphs
in
Regulation
5700
that
the
devices
and
equipment
available
for
deduction
would
be
more
narrowly
defined.
I
can
therefore
understand
why
air
conditioners
and
other
air
treatment
equipment
are
excluded
in
paragraph
5700(c)
and
I
do
not
infer
from
this
exclusion
that
an
exclusion
for
air
conditioners
was
intended
or
should
be
assumed
as
a
matter
of
logic
in
Regulation
5700(i).
Finally,
it
cannot
be
said
that
an
express
exclusion
for
air
conditioners
was
omitted
because
no
one
would
think
of
them
as
walking
aids
for
disabled
people.
The
evidence
was
clear
that
air
conditioning
was
known
as
an
effective
treatment
for
heat
sensitive
multiple
sclerosis
patients
long
before
the
enactment
of
Regulation
5700(i).
Accordingly,
in
a
detailed
tightly
drafted
regulation
which
elsewhere
contains
an
exclusion
for
air
conditioners,
I
would
expect
to
see
air
conditioners
excluded
from
paragraph
5700(i)
if
there
was
an
intention
to
exclude
them.
As
that
exclusion
was
not
made,
I
am
prepared
to
conclude
that
air
conditioners
are
eligible
for
the
deduction.
Conclusion
For
all
these
reasons,
the
appeal
is
allowed.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content