Goetz,
TCJ
[ORALLY]:—This
is
an
appeal
by
the
appellant
with
respect
to
his
1981
taxation
year
whereby
he
sought
to
deduct
certain
sums
for
board
and
lodging
and
expenses
re
the
operation
of
his
automobile.
His
home
was
in
St.
Thomas,
Ontario.
His
family
lived
in
St.
Thomas.
In
the
long
range
view
he
has
always
worked
in
or
out
of
St.
Thomas.
The
Minister
disallowed
the
deductions
except
to
the
extent
of
$673.50
on
the
basis
that
this
represented
the
cost
of
meals
consumed
by
the
appellant
while
performing
his
duties
of
employment
away
from
the
Montrose
terminal
in
Niagara
Falls
and
away
from
his
place
of
residence.
Filed
by
the
Crown
were
the
appellant’s
income
tax
returns
for
the
years
1980,
1981
and
1982,
all
of
which
show
the
claim
for
gasoline
expenses
to
get
to
and
from
basically
the
Montrose
yard
at
Niagara
Falls
and
back
to
St.
Thomas.
The
facts
of
this
case
are
somewhat
similar
to
the
case
I
just
heard,
that
of
Brian
Edwards
v
MNR,
[1985]
2
CTC
2171,
other
than
the
fact
of
claiming
for
automobile
expenses.
Quite
specifically
the
decision
in
the
case
of
The
Queen
v
Ervin
E
Diemert,
[1976]
CTC
301;
76
DTC
6187,
which
I
quoted
in
my
judgment
in
the
Edwards
case
(supra)
applies.
The
Diemert
case
(supra)
involved
a
locomotive
engineer
who
lived
in
Regina
but
had
to
go
to
Assin-
iboia
and
sought
to
deduct
the
cost
of
going
to
and
from
Assiniboia
every
week
and
the
Federal
Court
—
Trial
Division
held
that
the
expenses
were
not
incurred
in
the
course
of
his
employment.
Travelling
to
his
place
of
work
must
be
contrasted
with
travelling
in
the
course
of
his
work.
“Travelling
to
and
from
Assiniboia
on
weekends
was
not
done
in
the
course
of
his
employment
and
expenses
incurred
as
a
result
were,
therefore,
not
deductible".
That
fits
exactly
with
what
Mr
Ferguson
claims.
He
must
fall
within
those
sections
in
order
to
get
the
deduction
claimed
by
him
for
board
and
lodging.
I
have
dealt
with
the
mileage
and
I
disallow
the
board
and
lodging
pursuant
to
the
decision
I
gave
in
the
Edwards
case
(supra)
and
the
basis
for
that
decision
was
the
Diemert
case
(supra)
and
the
decision
in
The
Queen
v
Thomas
E
Little,
[1974]
CTC
678;
74
DTC
6534.
The
appeal
is,
therefore,
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content