Rouleau,
J.:—The
taxpayer
is
appealing,
by
way
of
trial
de
novo,
a
decision
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
rendered
June
1,
1987.
The
issue
concerns
the
deductibility
of
$5,000
in
moving
expenses
incurred
by
the
plaintiff
in
moving
from
California
to
Canada
in
1982.
The
deduction
was
disallowed
by
the
Minister
and
his
decision
was
upheld
by
the
Tax
Court
without
written
reasons.
The
plaintiff
in
this
action
is
presently
and
has
been
a
resident
of
the
State
of
California
since
1974.
Previous
to
moving
to
the
United
States,
he
had
been
employed
by
Inco
in
the
Province
of
Manitoba
and
while
in
their
employ
sustained
a
work-related
injury
in
1968.
In
1982
his
state
of
health
took
a
turn
for
the
worse
and
since
it
was
related
to
the
injury
sustained,
he
was
permitted
to
return
to
the
Province
of
Manitoba
where
he
was
hospitalized
and
treated
for
a
six-month
period.
Following
the
treatment,
he
then
spent
one
month
unemployed
in
the
Logan
Lake
area
of
B.C.
before
returning
to
the
State
of
California.
Upon
moving
to
the
United
States
of
America
in
1974,
the
plaintiff
acquired
a
liquor
store
which
he
owned
and
operated
until
prior
to
his
return
to
Winnipeg
in
1982.
He
had
also
acquired
a
home
while
resident
in
the
United
States
which
he
eventually
returned
to
after
treatment
in
1982-83.
His
evidence
was
that
he
never
returned
to
Canada
from
the
period
1974
to
1982;
was
never
gainfully
employed
in
this
country,
nor
did
he
own
or
operate
any
business
in
Canada
since
his
departure
in
1974.
As
a
result
of
a
Canadian
inheritance
Mr.
Schulz,
along
with
his
wife,
filed
income
tax
returns
that
disclosed
a
considerable
amount
of
investment
income
in
1982;
when
filing
his
return
for
that
fiscal
year
he
deducted
moving
expenses
which
he
incurred
when
moving
from
the
United
States
into
Canada
during
1982
and
1983.
The
taxpayer
appeared
before
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
in
June
of
1987
and
his
claim
for
deduction
which
had
been
disallowed
by
the
Minister
was
denied
by
the
Tax
Court
without
written
reasons.
The
Income
Tax
Act
is
quite
clear
that
in
order
to
deduct
moving
expenses,
the
claim
must
be
made
against
income
earned
through
either
a
business
or
employment;
further,
the
Act
is
quite
specific
that
in
order
to
be
allowed
moving
expenses,
it
must
be
incurred
as
a
result
of
losing
employment
or
ceasing
to
operate
a
business
within
one
area
of
the
country
requiring
a
move
to
another
area
of
the
country
to
either
secure
employment
or
to
initiate
a
new
business.
I
do
not
intend
to
go
over
the
principles
of
residency
or
deemed
residency
which
may
or
may
not
be
applicable
to
the
plaintiff
since
the
reasons
I
have
outlined
above
are
sufficient
to
disallow
the
plaintiff's
claim
for
relief
and
uphold
the
Minister’s
decision.
I
make
no
order
as
to
costs.
After
conversation
in
open
court
with
the
plaintiff,
I
am
of
the
view
that
had
he
received
some
written
reasons
or
sufficient
explanation
from
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
for
the
dismissal
of
his
action,
this
trial
would
not
have
been
necessary.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content