Bonner,
T.C.J.:—This
is
an
appeal
from
an
assessment
of
income
tax
for
the
1982
taxation
year.
The
respondent,
by
the
assessment
in
question,
disallowed
as
a
deduction
in
the
computation
of
the
appellant’s
income
from
his
employment
as
a
truck
driver
the
sum
of
$1,594
which
he
had
claimed
in
respect
of
expenditures
for
meals.
The
claim
was
made
under
the
provisions
of
paragraph
8(1
)(g)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
It
reads:
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)
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.
The
respondent
conceded
that
the
amounts
in
question
had
been
disbursed
for
meals
and
that
the
appellant’s
employers
were
persons
whose
principal
businesses
were
described
in
paragraph
8(1)(g).
The
appellant
did
not
contest
the
assumption
made
by
the
respondent
on
assessment
that
Edmonton
was
the
municipality
where
the
employers'
establishments
to
which
he
reported
were
located.
The
only
issue
was
whether
the
duties
of
the
appellant’s
“.
..
employment
required
him,
regularly,
.
.
.
to
travel,
away
from
.
.
.
[Edmonton]
.
.
.
and
away
from
the
metropolitan
area,
.
.
.
where
it
was
located"
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
8(1)(g).
In
Gilles
F.
Derrien
v.
M.N.R.,
[1980]
C.T.C.
2848
at
2850;
80
D.T.C.
1751
at
1753,
I
had
occasion
to
consider
the
ambit
of
paragraph
8(1
)(g).
I
said:
In
my
view
the
solution
becomes
apparent
when
paragraph
8(1)(g)
is
read
as
a
whole
within
its
statutory
context.
the
approach
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
to
deductions
from
salary
or
wages
in
the
process
of
computing
income
from
office
or
employment
is
generally
restrictive.
In
this
regard
reference
should
be
made
to
subsection
8(2)
of
the
Act.
The
exceptions
in
subsection
8(1)
are
not
to
be
regarded
as
having
been
inserted
capriciously.
The
exception
made
for
transport
employees
by
paragraph
8(1)(g)
recognizes
that
the
nature
of
the
work
often
involves
substantial
trips
away
from
the
area
where
such
employees
live
and
report
for
work.
Such
trips
impose
a
burden
of
expense
for
meals
and
lodging
not
borne
by
the
ordinary
worker
who
can
sleep
and
eat,
at
least
most
of
the
time,
at
home.
The
“while
so
away”
qualification
and
the
use
of
the
word
“and”
in
the
phrase
“disbursements
for
meals
and
lodging”
tend
to
support
this
conclusion.
The
cost
to
the
ordinary
worker
of
food
and
shelter
is
a
personal
expense.
The
cost
to
a
transport
worker
of
meals
and
lodging
necessitated
by
travel
in
the
course
of
his
duties
is
much
more
directly
related
to
the
income
earning
process.
When
paragraph
8(1)(g)
is
read
as
a
whole
within
its
context
it
will
be
seen
that
some
of
the
dictionary
definitions
of
“travel”,
such
as
“to
go
from
one
place
to
another”,
are
inappropriate.
When
paragraph
8(1)(g)
refers
to
travelling
away
from
a
municipality
and
its
metropolitan
area
it
contemplates
journeys
of
such
substantial
distance
and
duration
as
to
require
disbursements
for
both
meals
and
lodging.
It
does
not
encompass
all
cases
in
which
a
taxpayer
goes
from
a
place
inside
the
metropolitan
area
to
a
place
just
outside
it.
During
1982
the
appellant
worked
for
two
different
employers
and
hauled
a
variety
of
freight.
Two
classes
of
trip
were
described
in
evidence.
On
one
the
appellant
was
engaged
in
hauling
cattle
from
Calmar
to
the
Edmonton
International
Airport.
This
work
required
the
appellant
to
pick
up
a
truck
each
morning
at
the
employer's
depot
on
the
east
side
of
Edmonton,
drive
to
Calmar,
make
a
succession
of
return
trips
from
Calmar
to
the
Airport
and
to
return
the
truck
to
the
employer's
depot
at
night.
The
second
class
described
involved
the
delivery
of
prefabricated
building
sections
from
Stony
Plain,
where
they
were
manufactured,
to
Nisku,
where
they
were
sandblasted
and
painted,
and
the
return
thereof
to
Stony
Plain.
The
points
of
origin
and
destination
of
the
loads
hauled
by
the
appellant
were
outside
the
municipal
boundaries
of
the
City
of
Edmonton
as
shown
on
Exhibit
R-1.
The
routes
traversed
by
the
appellant
while
hauling
freight
lay
wholly
outside
such
boundaries.
It
was
not
suggested
that
the
City
of
Edmonton
formed
part
of
a
larger
regional
municipality.
It
does
not
follow,
however,
that
the
City
was
not
surrounded
by
a
“‘metropolitan
area”.
Those
words
are
to
be
given
their
ordinary
meaning.
The
appellant’s
trips
did
not
take
him
either
any
great
distance
from
Edmonton
or
close
to
any
other
major
urban
centre,
nor
did
they
bring
him
within
any
region
having
an
identity
separate
and
distinct
from
Edmonton.
While
the
appellant's
duties
prevented
him
from
returning
home
for
lunch,
they
did
not
prevent
him
from
returning
to
his
Edmonton
home
each
evening.
In
such
circumstances
it
cannot,
in
my
view,
be
said
that
the
duties
of
the
appellant’s
employment
required
him,
while
away
from
Edmonton
and
its
metropolitan
area,
to
make
disbursements
for
meals
and
lodging.
The
appeal
will
therefore
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content