J
B
Goetz:—This
appeal
was
heard
at
Toronto,
Ontario,
on
March
19,
1979,
and
is
from
a
notice
of
reassessment
of
the
Minister
dated
February
23,1978,
whereby
the
Minister
disallowed
an
amount
of
$1,411.30
which
the
appellant
sought
to
deduct
in
filing
his
income
tax
return
for
the
taxation
year
1976,
on
the
basis
that
it
related
to
automobile
expenses.
This
issue
IS
whether
the
appellant
is
entitled
to
travelling
expenses
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
paragraph
8(1
)(h)
and
subsection
8(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63
and
amendments
thereto.
Paragraph
8(1)(h)
and
subsection
8(2)
reads
as
follows:
(1)
In
computing
a
taxpayer’s
income
for
a
taxation
year
from
an
office
or
employment,
there
may
be
deducted
such
of
the
following
amounts
as
are
wholly
applicable
to
that
source
of
such
part
of
the
following
amounts
as
may
reasonably
be
regarded
as
applicable
thereto:
(h)
where
the
taxpayer,
in
the
year,
(i)
was
ordinarily
required
to
carry
on
the
duties
of
his
employment
away
from
his
employer’s
place
of
business
or
in
different
places,
(ii)
under
the
contract
of
employment
was
required
to
pay
the
travelling
expenses
incurred
by
him
in
the
performance
of
the
duties
of
his
office
or
employment,
and
(iii)
was
not
in
receipt
of
an
allowance
for
travelling
expenses
that
was,
by
virtue
of
subparagraph
6(1)(b)(v),
(vi)
or
(vii),
not
included
in
computing
his
income
and
did
not
claim
any
deduction
for
the
year
under
paragraph
(e),
(f)
or
(9),
amounts
expended
by
him
in
the
year
for
travelling
in
the
course
of
his
employment;
(2)
Except
as
permitted
by
this
section,
no
deductions
shall
be
made
in
computing
a
taxpayer’s
income
for
a
taxation
year
from
an
office
or
employment.
Facts
The
appellant
was
a
brakeman
employed
by
the
Canadian
National
Railways
and
resided
in
North
York
(Toronto).
The
base
of
operation
was
Metropolitan
Toronto
with
an
area
of
approximately
25
miles
in
which
the
appellant
had
to
perform
his
duties
under
his
employment
with
the
railway.
He
was
required
to
travel
between
different
railway
terminals
and
when
this
occurred,
he
usually
was
via
railway
car
from
his
base
point
of
residence
to
these
outlying
terminals.
It
was
a
term
of
his
employment
that
he
have
a
car
available
to
him
so
that
he
could
perform
his
duties
where
no
train
was
available
to
transport
him
to
terminals
such
as
Malton
and/or
Oshawa.
On
January
16,
1976,
CN
sent
the
following
letter
to
the
appellant:
16
January
1976
Mr
A
J
Bunn
28
Parkview
Avenue
Willowdale,
Ontario
M2N
3Y2
Dear
Sir:
As
you
are
working
the
Brakeman’s
spare
board
at
Toronto,
which
includes
reporting
for
duty
at
six
different
locations
including
Mimico,
Malton,
Toronto
Union
Station
and
MacMillan
Yard
at
Keele
Street
and
No
7
Highway
on
a
two
hour
call,
twenty
four
hours
per
day,
seven
days
per
week,
it
is
advisable
to
have
an
automobile
because
of
the
irregular
hours
of
public
transportation
and
the
length
of
your
call
for
work.
Yours
truly,
(Signature)
E
B
Roach
Trainmaster
Toronto
Area
The
appellant
stated
in
evidence
that
his
salary
was
the
same
as
for
what
he
calls
“deadheading”,
whether
by
train
or
by
his
own
car,
and
further,
that
he
received
a
compensation
of
50¢
per
mile
deadhead
and
was
paid
the
same
as
when
he
was
working
whether
travelling
by
car
or
being
moved
by
train.
Clearly
the
appellant
does
not
come
within
the
provisions
of
paragraph
8(1
)(h).
The
area
in
which
he
worked,
or
places
of
business
of
his
employer,
the
Canadian
National
Railways,
constituted
an
area
in
which
he
was
required
by
the
terms
of
his
employment
to
perform
his
duties
on
behalf
of
his
employer
and
for
which
he
was
compensated.
The
appeal
is
therefore
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content