Somers
D.J.T.C.:
This
appeal
was
heard
in
Sudbury,
Ontario,
on
October
28,
1996.
This
appeal
concerns
the
Appellant’s
1993
taxation
year
in
which
he
claimed
a
deduction
in
respect
of
residing
in
a
prescribed
area
calculated
pursuant
to
subsection
110.7(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Subsection
110.7(1)
reads
as
follows:
Where,
throughout
a
period
(in
this
section
referred
to
as
the
“qualifying
period”)
of
not
less
than
6
consecutive
months
beginning
or
ending
in
a
taxation
year,
a
taxpayer
who
is
an
individual
has
resided
in
one
or
more
particular
areas
each
of
which
was
a
prescribed
northern
zone
or
prescribed
intermediate
zone
for
the
year
and
has
filed
for
the
year
a
claim
in
prescribed
form,
there
may
be
deducted
in
computing
the
taxpayer’s
taxable
income
for
the
year...
In
reassessing
the
Appellant,
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(the
“Minister”)
made
the
following
assumptions
of
fact,
which
the
Appellant
admitted
or
denied:
(a)
the
Appellant
maintained
his
principal
residence
(the
“principal
residence”)
in
the
town
of
Cochrane,
Ontario;
(denied)
(b)
the
Appellant
was
employed
by
Detour
Lake
Mine
(the
“mine”),
for
which
the
mine
site
is
located
at
50.0
degrees
north
latitude
and
79
degrees
44
minutes
longitude;
(admitted)
(c)
while
at
the
mine
site,
the
Appellant
stayed
in
a
bunkhouse;
(admitted)
(d)
the
Appellant
stayed
at
the
mine
site
for
a
period
of
10-12
days,
and
for
the
following
6
days
returned
to
the
principal
residence;
(denied)
(e)
the
Appellant
did
not
remain
at
the
mine
for
a
period
of
6
consecutive
months;
(admitted)
(f)
at
all
material
times
during
the
1993
taxation
year
the
Appellant
did
not
reside
at
the
mine
but
instead
resided
at
his
principal
residence;
(denied)
(g)
the
principal
residence
is
in
an
area
of
Canada
south
of
the
55th
parallel
of
north
latitude,
other
than
an
area
that
is
situated
in
a
grassland
south
of
the
50th
parallel
of
north
latitude;
(denied)
(h)
at
all
material
times
as
well
as
in
the
preceding
taxation
years:
i)
there
was
an
all-weather
road
providing
access
to
the
principal
residence;
(admitted)
ii)
the
urban
centre
with
a
population
of
10,000
or
more
that
was
nearest
to
the
principal
residence
was
Timmins;
(admitted)
iii)
the
city
or
town
within
the
urban
centre
of
Timmins,
Ontario
that
has
the
largest
population
of
all
the
cities
and
towns
in
that
urban
centre
is
the
town
of
Timmins;
(admitted)
iv)
the
principal
residence
was
less
than
160
kilometres
by
all-
weather
road
from
the
city
or
town
hall
of
Timmins;
(admitted)
(i)
the
residence
is
not
in
a
prescribed
area
as
defined
in
section
7303
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations
(the
“Regulations”);
(denied)
(j)
the
Appellant
is
not
entitled
to
claim
a
deduction
available
to
individuals
residing
in
a
prescribed
area
for
the
1993
taxation
year.”
(denied)
The
Appellant
testified
that
he
lives
with
his
wife
and
two
children
in
Cochrane,
Ontario.
He
has
been
married
17
years
and
has
been
raised
in
that
city.
He
bought
a
house,
where
he
and
his
family
live.
He
stated
that
in
1993
he
lived
in
Detour
Lake,
approximately
130
miles
from
his
Cochrane
residence,
where
his
family
lives.
He
did
not
go
home
every
weekend.
He
would
either
go
to
Timmins
or
Cochrane
on
weekends.
His
work
schedule
consisted
of
ten
days
on
shift
and
five
days
off.
During
the
year,
he
would
have
lived
222
days
in
Detour
Lake.
He
recognizes
that
Detour
Lake
is
a
prescribed
area,
which
is
also
recognized
by
the
Minister.
The
employer
provided
a
bunkhouse
with
five
to
six
bedrooms
and
one
bathroom
free
of
charge
for
the
employees.
However,
only
three
employees
lived
in
the
bunkhouse;
their
families
were
not
allowed
to
live
there.
The
Cochrane
residence,
which
he
recognizes
as
not
being
in
a
prescribed
area,
is
where
his
family
lives,
takes
care
of
the
house,
does
repairs
and
also
where
his
bills
such
as
municipal
and
school
taxes
are
paid.
As
to
Detour
Lake,
situated
in
a
prescribed
area,
it
is
his
place
of
employment
where
he
only
has
his
essentials.
The
bunkhouse
is
furnished
by
the
employer.
He
stated
he
spent
more
than
half
of
his
time
at
Detour
Lake,
but
admits
that
he
did
not
remain
at
the
mine
for
a
period
of
six
consecutive
months.
The
Appellant
has
claimed
deductions
for
living
expenses
under
subsection
110.7(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
He
has
admitted
that
he
did
not
live
in
Detour
Lake
situated
in
a
prescribed
area
for
six
consecutive
months
in
the
taxation
year.
He
also
admitted
that
his
living
quarters
are
provided
by
the
employer,
without
cost
to
the
him.
I
must
conclude
that
the
Appellant
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
section
110.7
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Therefore
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content