Worsfold v. R., [1998] 3 CTC 2378

Beaubier T.C.J. .

This appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on April 24, 1998. The Appellant was the only witness.

The appeal concerns the Appellant’s 1992 and 1993 taxation years. In those years he was employed by several employers and for a while he was unemployed. He was disallowed employment expenses claimed in respect to his office in his home and expenses in White Rock, British Columbia on account of teaching social work at the University of Victoria. He appealed this disallowance. At trial he withdrew his appeal on account of similar employment expenses respecting his employment by the Ministry of Health.

These reasons will deal with his claims for expenses which he outlined in Exhibit A-l for both 1992 and 1993. The only employment expenses which he is permitted to deduct are those described in section 8 of the Income Tax Act.

He was paid a mileage allowance by the University of Victoria. As a result he cannot deduct parking expenses, ferry costs from White Rock to Victoria, or vehicle expenses.

He deducted food expenses which included his faculty club dues at the University of Victoria. Because these included his club dues, which are not specified, these are not allowed. Had he broken down his food portion from these amounts, they would have been allowed based upon his testimony.

Entertainment expenses are not deductible to this employee in his occupation as a teacher.

Supplies are in part consumed where they include items such as paper. However, this figure also included capital items. Since they are not broken down by item, they are not deductible. This is also the case with “books, journals and computer supplies”.

The Appellant had a separate specific telephone-fax line devoted to his work and his student communications. This deduction is allowed: 1992 - $200; 1993 - $200.

His final claim was for office space in his home which was a small apartment in White Rock during 1992 and 1993. This claim is deductible pursuant to subsection 8(13) if it is in respect to the place where the Appellant principally performed the duties of his employment. On the evidence, this is the case. The Appellant was a professor of extension students around the world who were taking classes from him as part of their studies towards a Bachelor of Social Work degree from the University of Victoria. He worked out of his home except for 3 or 4 times each year when he went to the campus at Victoria for a day or two.

The amount deductible is limited to the extent that the space claimed is where the duties were performed. His rent was just over $500 per month. He did not detail his other expenses such as electric power. However, he supplied a plan of his apartment to the Court which detailed the area devoted to his work. He claimed $1,200 in each year. This appears to be reasonable and this claim is allowed in both 1992 and 1993.

The claims are referred to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment to allow the following expenses claimed: