Guy
Tremblay:—This
case
was
heard
on
April
29,
1982,
in
the
City
of
London,
Ontario.
1.
The
Point
at
Issue
The
point
at
issue
is
whether
the
appellant,
an
engineering
technician,
employed
by
the
County
of
Wellington,
Roads
Department
of
Ontario,
is
correct
in
not
including
in
the
computation
of
his
income
for
the
taxation
years
1977
and
1978
the
amount
of
$840
($70
per
month)
received
from
his
employer
as
reimbursement
for
his
daily
travelling
expenses
throughout
the
county.
The
respondent
included
the
said
amount
in
the
income
on
the
basis,
firstly
that
it
is
an
allowance
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
6(1
)(b)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
and
does
not
come
within
the
specific
exceptions
listed
in
that
paragraph,
and
secondly
that
the
said
allowance
is
a
remuneration
for
services
rendered
by
the
appellant
in
accordance
with
section
5
of
the
Act.
2.
The
Facts
2.01
The
facts
are
in
substance,
the
same
as
those
in
the
Jack
Salter
case
(pp
2689ff)
heard
on
the
same
day.
2.02
However,
the
appellant
in
this
case
testified
that
in
1977
when
he
started
to
receive
the
amount
of
$70
per
month,
it
was
not
for
remuneration
because
he
received
at
the
same
time
an
increase
in
salary.
The
$70
per
month
was
paid
to
reimburse
his
travelling
expenses.
Indeed
the
appellant
had
to
use
his
own
car
to
do
his
work
throughout
the
county.
2.03
He
admitted
that
he
also
received
during
the
years
involved
an
amount
of
0.18
cents
per
mile.
In
1977,
he
drove
11,749
miles
and
in
1978
he
drove
11,815
miles.
2.04
He
also
testified
that
the
municipality
of
Guelph
is
not
in
the
County
of
Wellington,
“although
it
is
the
county
seat.
None
of
the
county
roads
are
in
the
City
of
Guelph.
They
are
all
outside
the
city
limits”.
His
office
was
in
the
County
Court
House
in
the
City
of
Guelph.
3.
Analysis
For
the
same
reasons
given
in
the
Jack
Salter
case,
the
reimbursement
for
the
actual
expenses
is
not
an
allowance.
Moreover,
such
reimbursement
made
by
an
employer
to
his
employee
for
expenses
incurred
in
the
course
of
his
employment
is
not
an
income.
4.
Conclusion
The
appeal
is
allowed
and
the
matter
is
referred
back
to
the
respondent
for
reassessment
in
accordance
with
the
above
reasons
for
judgment.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content