This
appeal
pursuant
to
the
Informal
Procedure
was
heard
at
Edmonton,
Alberta
on
July
14,
1998.
The
Appellant
was
the
only
witness.
In
1993,
the
Appellant,
an
Edmonton
public
school
principal,
claimed
for
employment
expenses
of
$7,558.68
he
incurred
on
“leave
for
professional
improvement”
when
he
attended
the
University
of
Southern
Mississippi
in
Hattiesburg,
Mississippi
from
May
17
to
August
15.
They
were
disallowed.
He
appealed.
Paragraphs
14
and
15
of
the
Reply
to
the
Notice
of
Appeal
read:
14.
In
so
reassessing
the
Appellant,
the
Minister
made
the
following
assumptions
of
fact:
(a)
the
facts
admitted
and
stated
above;
(b)
throughout
the
1993
taxation
year
the
Appellant
was
a
resident
of
Canada;
(c)
throughout
the
1993
year
the
Appellant
was
employed
by
the
School
Board
as
a
school
principal;
(d)
for
the
period
May
17,
1993
to
August
25,
1993
the
Appellant
was
granted
leave
for
professional
development
by
the
School
Board;
(e)
the
Appellant
was
enrolled
in
the
doctoral
program
at
the
University
of
Southern
Mississippi;
(f)
during
the
period
May
17,
1993
to
August
17,
1993
the
Appellant
drove
from
Edmonton
to
Hattiesburg,
Mississippi
and
return;
(g)
the
Appellant
also
travelled
to
other
places
while
in
the
US;
(h)
the
automobile
expenses
claimed
are
expenses
incurred
between
May
17,
1993
and
August
17,
1993;
(i)
the
Appellant’s
spouse
and
one
child
accompanied
the
Appellant
on
the
trip
to
and
from
Hattiesburg,
Mississippi;
(j)
the
expenses
claimed
are
personal
expenses
of
the
Appellant
and
were
not
for
the
purpose
of
earning
income
from
employment;
(k)
the
cost
of
training
is
a
capital
expenditure;
(l)
the
expenses
claimed
by
the
Appellant
were
expenses
related
to
pursuing
studies
and
other
personal
activities
while
on
leave
from
his
duties;
(m)
the
Appellant
was
not
ordinarily
required
to
carry
out
the
duties
of
his
employment
away
from
the
School
Board’s
place
of
business
or
in
different
places;
(n)
under
the
contract
of
his
employment
the
Appellant
was
not
required
to
pay
travelling
expenses
incurred
by
him
in
the
performance
of
his
duties
of
his
office
or
employment;
(o)
under
the
contract
of
his
employment
with
the
School
Board,
the
Appellant
was
not
required
to
pay
for
the
cost
of
supplies
that
were
consumed
directly
in
the
performance
of
the
duties
of
his
office
or
employment
and
that
the
Appellant
was
required
by
the
contract
of
employment
to
supply
and
pay
for;
(p)
the
expenses
claimed
in
respect
of
meals,
lodging,
parking,
supplies
and
training
have
not
been
proven
to
have
been
incurred
by
the
Appellant;
(q)
on
April
11,
1994,
the
Appellant
received
an
Unwarranted
Refund
in
the
amount
of
$3,056.57;
(r)
prescribed
interest
on
the
Unwarranted
Refund
from
April
30,
1994
to
June
8,
1995
amounts
to
$292.85.
15.
On
March
27,
1992,
the
Appellant
and
the
School
Board
entered
into
an
agreement
titled
“Leave
for
Professional
Improvement”
whereby,
inter
alia”:
(a)
the
School
Board
granted
the
Appellant
leave
of
absence
from
duties
for
the
period
May
17,
1993
to
August
25,
1993;
(b)
the
purpose
of
the
leave
was
specified
by
the
Appellant
in
a
written
application
for
leave
for
professional
improvement,
subject
to
the
terms
and
conditions
contained
in
clause
13.5.1(c)
of
the
Teachers’
Agreement;
(c)
the
remuneration
in
respect
to
this
leave
was
to
be
calculated
on
the
basis
of
the
Appellant’s
grid
placement
at
the
time
the
leave
commenced;
(d)
on
completion
of
the
leave
the
Appellant
was
to
provide
the
associate
superintendent
with
evidence
that
all
the
conditions
of
professional
improvement
leave
had
been
fulfilled;
and
(e)
the
Appellant
was
obliged
to
resume
and
continue
the
performance
of
duties
as
an
employee
of
the
School
Board
for
the
next
three
years
following
the
leave.
Assumptions
14(b),
(c),
(d),
(e),
(f),
(g),
(h),
(i)
and
(I)
are
true.
Paragraph
15
is
true
in
its
entirety.
The
introduction
and
paragraph
1
of
the
Appellant’s
contract
with
his
employer
for
“Leave
for
Professional
Improvement”
(Exhibit
A-1,
page
12)
reads:
It
is
specific.
The
Appellant
received
a
“leave
of
absence
from
duties”.
That
refers
to
his
duties
of
employment.
For
this
reason
the
expenses
claimed
were
not
incurred
in
the
performance
of
the
duties
of
his
office
or
employment.
His
leave
was
an
exception
to
and
a
leave
from
those
duties
which
required
a
specific
agreement
with
his
employer.
The
appeal
is
therefore
dismissed.
Email this Content