The
Appellant
appealed
the
disallowance
of
moving
expenses
of
$1,739
in
1993.
The
assumptions
in
the
Reply
read:
In
1993
the
Appellant,
an
accountant,
was
working
in
Newfoundland.
He
realized
that
his
job
was
not
secure.
Therefore
he
and
his
wife
decided
to
look
around
for
another
job
for
the
Appellant.
In
1993
they
took
ten
days
and
drove
to
Waterloo,
Ontario.
They
were
looking
for
a
new
job
for
the
Appellant,
a
special
school
for
their
son
and
a
house.
It
is
the
reasonable
expenses
for
this
trip
that
are
in
dispute.
They
found
the
school
and
the
house
and
returned
to
Newfoundland.
The
job
came
later.
The
expenses
for
the
actual
move
in
1993
were
all
allowed.
The
Respondent’s
counsel
put
the
issue
simply:
Section
62
does
not
allow
the
deduction
of
expenses
for
house
hunting
and
job
hunting.
Subsections
62(1),
(2)
and
(3)
read:
(1)
Where
a
taxpayer
has,
at
any
time,
commenced
(a)
to
carry
on
a
business
or
to
be
employed
at
a
location
in
Canada
(in
this
subsection
referred
to
as
his
“new
work
location’’),
or
(b)
to
be
a
student
in
full-time
attendance
at
an
educational
institution
(in
this
subsection
referred
to
as
his
“new
work
location”)
that
is
a
university,
college
or
other
educational
institution
providing
courses
at
a
post-
secondary
school
level,
and
by
reason
thereof
has
moved
from
the
residence
in
Canada
at
which,
before
the
move,
he
ordinarily
resided
(in
this
section
referred
to
as
his
“old
residence”)
to
a
residence
in
Canada
at
which,
after
the
move,
he
ordinarily
resided
(in
this
section
referred
to
as
his
“new
residence”),
so
that
the
distance
between
his
old
residence
and
his
new
work
location
is
not
less
than
40
kilometres
greater
than
the
distance
between
his
new
residence
and
his
new
work
location,
in
computing
his
income
for
the
taxation
year
in
which
he
moved
from
his
old
residence
to
his
new
residence
or
for
the
immediately
following
taxation
year,
there
may
be
deducted
amounts
paid
by
him
as
or
on
account
of
moving
expenses
incurred
in
the
course
of
moving
from
his
old
residence
to
his
new
residence
to
the
extent
that
(c)
they
were
not
paid
on
his
behalf
by
his
employer,
(d)
they
were
not
deductible
by
virtue
of
this
section
in
computing
the
taxpayer’s
income
for
the
preceding
taxation
year,
(e)
they
would
not,
but
for
this
section,
be
deductible
in
computing
the
taxpayer’s
income,
(f)
the
aggregate
of
such
amounts
does
not
exceed
(i)
in
any
case
described
in
paragraph
(a),
the
taxpayer’s
income
for
the
year
from
his
employment
at
his
new
work
location
or
from
carrying
on
the
new
business
at
his
new
work
location,
as
the
case
may
be,
or
(ii)
in
any
case
described
in
paragraph
(b),
the
aggregate
of
amounts
required
to
be
included
in
computing
his
income
for
the
year
by
virtue
of
paragraphs
56(1
)(n)
and
(o),
and
(g)
any
reimbursement
or
allowance
received
by
him
in
respect
of
such
expenses
is
included
in
computing
his
income.
(2)
Where
a
taxpayer
would,
if
subsection
(1)
were
read
without
reference
to
paragraph
(a)
thereof
and
(a)
if
the
reference
therein
to
“moved
from
the
residence
in
Canada
at
which”
were
read
as
a
reference
to
“moved
from
the
residence
at
which”,
or
(b)
if
the
reference
therein
to
“to
a
residence
in
Canada
at
which”
were
read
as
a
reference
to
“to
a
residence
at
which”,
be
entitled
to
deduct
an
amount
by
virtue
of
that
subsection
in
computing
his
income
for
a
taxation
year,
that
amount
may
be
deducted
in
computing
his
income
for
the
year.
(3)
In
subsection
(1),
“moving
expenses”
includes
any
expense
incurred
as
or
on
account
of
(a)
travelling
costs
(including
a
reasonable
amount
expended
for
meals
and
lodging),
in
the
course
of
moving
the
taxpayer
and
members
of
his
household
from
his
old
residence
to
his
new
residence,
(b)
the
cost
to
him
of
transporting
or
storing
household
effects
in
the
course
of
moving
from
his
hold
residence
to
his
new
residence,
(c)
the
cost
to
him
of
meals
and
lodging
near
the
old
residence
or
the
new
residence
for
the
taxpayer
and
members
of
his
household
for
a
period
not
exceeding
15
days,
(d)
the
cost
to
him
of
cancelling
the
lease,
if
any,
by
virtue
of
which
he
was
the
lessee
of
his
old
residence,
(e)
the
selling
costs
in
respect
of
the
sale
of
his
old
residence,
and
(f)
where
his
old
residence
is
being
or
has
been
sold
by
the
taxpayer
or
his
spouse
as
a
result
of
the
move,
the
cost
to
him
of
legal
services
in
respect
of
the
purchase
of
his
new
residence
and
of
any
taxes
imposed
on
the
transfer
or
registration
of
title
to
his
new
residence,
but,
for
greater
certainty,
does
not
include
costs
(other
than
costs
referred
to
in
paragraph
(f))
incurred
by
the
taxpayer
in
respect
of
the
acquisition
of
his
new
residence.
The
cases
are
clear.
Section
63
is
confined
to
moving
expenses
in
the
ordinary
meaning
of
that
term.
At
the
time
of
the
trip
in
question
the
Appellant
was
not
moving.
When
he
began
the
trip
he
was
not
sure
if
he
would
move.
When
he
ended
the
trip
he
still
did
not
have
a
new
job.
In
Gold
v.
R.
(sub
nom.
Gold
v.
The
Queen),
[1977]
C.T.C.
616,
77
D.T.C.
5430
(F.C.T.D.),
at
page
618
(D.T.C.
5431),
Addy
J.
expressed
the
jurisprudence
on
the
subject
in
these
words:
These
words
are
still
true
today.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Email this Content