McMillan v. Minister of National Revenue, [1997] 2 CTC 2315

Beaubier T.C.J.:

These matters were heard jointly on common evidence pursuant to the Informal Procedure at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, with the consent of the parties. The Appellants’ father, Murray McMillan, was the only witness.

Both appeals are in respect to 1994.

Scott claimed $1,540 plus $680 pursuant to subsection 62(1) of the Income Tax Act in respect to moving expenses for job purposes in 1994. There were two moves:

1. To New Norway, Alberta, to be employed by Command Drilling. This required three one-way trips between New Norway, Alberta, and North Battleford, Saskatchewan, totaling 1,200 kilometers in Scott’s car. There are no receipts or details of expenditures in evidence.

2. From New Norway to North Battleford to be employed by Turbo. This also required three one-way trips. It is not clear that these were all in Scott’s car, however, from the general tone of the evidence it is assumed that they were. There are no receipts or details of expenditures in evidence.

In both cases the Respondent is prepared to allow 17¢ per kilometer. The Appellant claimed on the basis of the calculation of $1.00 per kilometer and did not justify that.

The word used respecting such a claim in the Income Tax Act is “paid.” No details of payments made and they were paid for were proved.

In the Court’s view, over a period of time Scott must not only pay for gas and oil. He must also pay to replace his own vehicle. In the absence of any other evidence, the Court takes note that the Government of Canada’s mileage rate for the use of one’s own vehicle is 34.5¢ per kilometer for a Saskatchewan licensed car.

The Court finds that the amounts paid by Scott respecting each move consisted of 34.50 per kilometer for a total of 1200 kilometers each.

Chelsea made two claims for moving expenses in 1994:

1. From North Battleford, Saskatchewan, to New Norway, Alberta, for moving expenses for job purposes in the amount of $760.00. She did not use her own vehicle or submit receipts or satisfactory evidence of expenditures. The Respondent proposed an allowance of 170 per kilometer for 1200 kilometers. The Court finds that to be appropriate for the 1200 kilometers acknowledged to have been traveled for job moving purposes.

2. The second move was claimed for educational purposes to Brown University at Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.A. The evidence is clear that Chelsea did not attend any post-secondary educational institution in 1994. This claim is therefore dismissed.

Chelsea also claimed the Education Tax Credit pursuant to subsection 118.6(2) of the Income Tax Act for 1994. She did not file the prescribed certificate and she did not attend such an institution in 1994 within the meaning of the Income Tax Act. This claim is dismissed.

These appeals are referred to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment pursuant to these reasons.

Appeal allowed in part.