Beaubier,
J.T.C.C.
(orally):—
This
matter
was
heard
in
Vancouver,
B.C.,
on
February
4
and
8,
1994,
pursuant
to
the
informal
procedure
of
this
Court.
The
appellant’s
wife,
Ann-Marie
Kachmar,
testified
on
his
behalf.
Evelyn
Koffeman,
senior
agent,
Client
Assistance
for
Revenue
Canada
testified
for
the
Crown.
In
1990
the
appellant
was
a
truck
driver
whose
principal
occupation
was
the
transportation
of
hazardous
goods.
He
was
required
to
travel
both
inside
and
outside
the
municipality
ana
metropolitan
area
where
his
employer's
business
establishment
was
located,
namely,
in
Vancouver.
For
his
1990
taxation
year
he
claimed
a
deduction
of
80
per
cent
of
516
meals
at
$11
each.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
reassessed
and
allowed
94
meals.
The
appellant
appealed.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
attached
Schedule
A
to
the
reply
detailing
the
reasons
for
the
meals
allowed.
The
appellant’s
claim
was
within
the
provisions
of
paragraph
8(1
)(g)
and
subsection
8(4)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act").
They
read
as
follows:
8
(1)
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:
(g)
Transport
employee's
expenses.—
where
the
taxpayer
was
an
employee
of
a
person
whose
principal
business
was
passenger,
goods,
or
passenger
and
goods
transport
and
the
duties
of
the
employment
required
him,
regularly:
(i)
to
travel,
away
from
the
municipality
where
the
employer's
establishment
to
which
he
reported
for
work
was
located
and
away
from
the
metropolitan
area,
if
there
is
one,
where
it
was
located,
on
vehicles
used
by
the
employer
to
transport
the
goods
or
passengers,
and:
(ii)
while
so
away
from
such
municipality
and
metropolitan
area,
to
make
disbursements
for
meals
and
lodging,
amounts
so
disbursed
by
him
in
the
year
to
the
extent
that
he
has
not
been
reimbursed
and
is
not
entitled
to
be
reimbursed
in
respect
thereof.
(4)
Meals.
An
amount
expended
in
respect
of
a
meal
consumed
by
an
officer
or
an
employee
shall
not
be
included
in
computing
the
amount
of
a
deduction
under
paragraph
(1)(f)
or
(h)
unless
the
meal
was
consumed
during
a
period
while
he
was
required
by
his
duties
to
be
away,
for
a
period
of
not
less
than
12
hours,
from
the
municipality
where
the
employer’s
establishment
to
which
he
ordinarily
reported
for
work
was
located
and
away
from
the
metropolitan
area,
if
there
is
one,
where
it
was
located.
In
her
testimony
the
appellant
pointed
out,
as
was
accepted
by
the
Crown,
that
three
of
the
appellant's
monthly
trip
logs
were
missing
when
the
assessment
was
conducted.
On
this
basis
the
Crown
counsel
wisely
agreed
in
argument
to
allow
another
30
meals
to
the
appellant,
and
the
appeal
is
allowed
accordingly.
Mrs.
Kachmar,
however,
testified
and
conducted
the
case
on
the
larger
issue
that
her
husband
transported
hazardous
and
dangerous
goods
throughout
the
year
in
question
and,
therefore,
could
not
safely
carry
food
in
his
truck
or
eat
without
first
washing.
She
referred
to
both
provincial
and
federal
law
in
relation
to
this
question
of
principle.
Simply
put,
the
Court
agrees
with
Mrs.
Kachmar
that
the
Income
Tax
Act
does
not
presently
make
provision
for
people
such
as
her
husband
and
notes
that
paragraph
8(1
)(g)
and
subsection
8(4)
still
remain
in
the
format
in
which
they
were
in
1952.
In
reviewing
these
provisions
the
Court
notes
that
not
only
have
hazardous
goods
increased
and
become
far
more
hazardous
in
the
intervening
40
years,
but
the
"metropolitan
areas”
referred
to
in
the
provisions
have
also
increased
exponentially
in
size
in
places
such
as
Vancouver.
The
changes
have
not
only
been
physical
relating
to
the
chemicals
or
size
of
the
metropolitan
area,
they
have
also
been
of
an
unforeseeable
scale
relating
to
matters
such
as
vapours
and
the
contaminating
nature
of
the
chemicals,
and
the
difficulties,
hazards
and
lengths
of
time
involved
in
metropolitan
traffic.
These
are
not
provided
for
in
the
Income
Tax
Act
nor
has
the
Court
been
given
any
discretion
such
as
a
provision
which
allows
for
“reasonableness”,
in
relation
to
this
subject
matter.
The
Income
Tax
Act
does
not
grant
the
Court
the
discretion
to
deal
with
in
the
larger
issue
raised
by
Mrs.
Kachmar.
The
appeal
is
allowed
to
grant
the
appellant
a
further
30
meals
in
1990
and
the
matter
is
referred
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment
on
that
basis.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content