Bowman
J.T.C.C.:-This
appeal
is
from
an
assessment
for
the
1987
taxation
year.
Mrs.
Dawn
Mongillo
is
represented
by
her
husband.
There
were
two
years
originally.
On
one
was
a
deduction
by
her
of
a
disability
deduction
of
$2,890,
and
the
other
is
a
deduction
for
medical
expenses
amounting
to
$10,000
out
of
a
total
of
medical
expenses
incurred
by
her
of
$22,196.
The
Minister
has
conceded
she
is
entitled
to
a
disability
deduction
and
therefore
the
appeal
will
be
allowed
and
the
assessment
referred
back
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
to
permit
that
deduction.
So
far
as
the
additional
claim
for
medical
expenses
beyond
the
$414.41
is
concerned,
it
would
appear
that
the
Minister
has
allowed
some
$12,196.56
to
her
husband.
That
has
been
allowed
and
assuming
the
year
is
statute-barred
and
there
is
no
further
problem
about
the
deduction
of
that
by
her
husband.
Of
the
remaining
$10,000
allocated
to
Mrs.
Mongillo
in
the
amount
of
$637.43
for
air
cleaning;
$1,032
for
an
air
conditioner;
$1,760.37
for
wheat
grinder;
$674
for
a
freezer
and
specialized
food
of
$6,000.
Mr.
Mongillo
now
agrees
that
the
air
cleaner
and
the
air
conditioner
are
not
permissible,
they
are
specifically
excluded
from
the
equipment
prescribed
under
subparagraph
110(
1
)(c)(xii).
The
equipment
prescribed
in
Regulation
5700
specifically
excluded
air
conditioners
and
air
cleaners.
This
leaves
then
the
freezer,
specialized
food
and
the
wheat
grinder.
Without
any
question
all
of
these
items
were
a
direct
result
of
Mrs.
Mongillo’s
severe
medical
condition.
The
wheat
grinder
had
to
be
bought
because
of
a
particular
allergy.
A
freezer
was
needed
for
the
foods
that
she
required.
Specialized
foods
had
to
be
imported
from
California
and
on
the
advice
and
prescription
of
her
doctor
a
specialist
in
allergies.
There
is
no
question
about
the
expense
and
there
is
no
question
that
it
was
necessary.
The
problem
is
I
do
not
see
where
these
items
fall
within
any
of
the
specific
items
in
paragraph
110(
1
)(c).
So
far
as
the
specialized
foods
are
concerned,
the
only
provision
that
might
assist
him
is
subparagraph
110(
1
)(c)(xii):
drugs,
medical
amounts
or
preparation
or
substances
other
than
those
prescribed
in
section
9,
manufactured,
sold
or
represented
for
use
and
diagnosis,
treatment
or
prevention
of
disease,
disorder,
abnormal
physical
state
or
symptoms
thereof
in
order
to
restore,
correct
or
modify
an
organic
function.
Purchased
for
use
by
a
taxpayer,
spouse
or
any
such
dependant
as
prescribed
by
such
medical
practitioner
or
dentist,
and
as
recorded
by
a
pharmacist
licensed
to
practice
under
the
laws
of
the
place
where
the
expenses
were
incurred.
Arguably
the
specialized
foods
meet
all
the
criteria
except
the
last
one,
as
recorded
by
a
pharmacist
licensed
to
practice
under
the
laws
in
a
place
where
the
expenses
were
incurred.
The
law
I
think
is
fairly
clear.
These
are
not
recorded
by
a
pharmacist
at
all.
They
are
food,
not
sold
in
drugstores
and
accordingly
this
criterion
is
not
met.
The
same
observations
can
be
made
on
the
wheat
grinder
and
the
freezer,
necessary
as
they
may
be,
they
are
not
caught
in
paragraph
110(1)(c).
I
regard
this
as
a
sad
case
and
one
that
disturbs
me
very
much
that
I
have
to
dismiss.
Certainly
the
taxpayer
and
her
husband
have
come
here
in
good
faith
hoping
to
get
some
write-off
as
a
result
of
the
expenses
of
medical
things
that
she
has
to
buy.
The
list
in
paragraph
110(1)(c)
and
Regulation
5700
simply
does
not
cover
these
items.
I
have
to
take
the
law
as
I
find
it.
Accordingly,
with
extreme
reluctance
I
have
to
dismiss
the
appeal
except
with
respect
to
the
amount
deductible
as
a
disability
deduction.
The
appeal
is
allowed
and
the
assessment
referred
back
to
permit
a
deduction
of
the
disability
payment
of
$2,890.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content