Rowe
D.J.T.C.:
The
Appellant,
Carole
Clark,
appealed
from
an
assessment
of
income
tax
for
her
1996
taxation
year.
In
that
year,
the
Appellant
attempted
to
deduct,
as
a
medical
expense,
the
sum
of
$7,358.71
in
respect
of
the
purchase
and
installation
of
a
hot
tub.
Mr.
Clark,
the
Appellant’s
husband,
testified
the
hot
tub
was
prescribed
for
him
by
his
arthritis
specialist,
and
that
it
provided
considerable
relief
for
him.
The
problem
is
the
hot
tub
is
not
a
device
or
equipment
that
is
of
a
prescribed
kind
pursuant
to
section
5700
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations.
As
I
noted
to
Counsel
for
the
Crown,
there’s
not
even
another
category
which
is
remotely
close,
so
that
one
could
apply
a
liberal
or
remedial
interpretation
to
it.
Accordingly,
the
issue
as
to
whether
or
not
the
Minister
properly
disallowed
the
amount
claimed
as
a
medical
expense
on
the
basis
that
the
disallowed
expense
was
not
a
medical
expense
within
the
meaning
of
subsection
108.2(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
and
section
5700
of
the
Regulations,
the
Minister,
in
taking
that
approach,
was
correctly
applying
the
law
and,
as
a
consequence,
the
assessment
complained
of
is
a
correct
assessment
and
the
appeal,
therefore,
must
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content