The
Assistant
Chairman:—I
am
going
to
allow
this
appeal
and
send
the
assessment
back
to
the
Minister
for
variation
to
compute
the
allowance
in
the
same
fashion
he
has,
except
that
the
allowance
shall
be
on
the
basis,
as
agreed
to
by
the
agent
for
the
appellant,
that,
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
8(1
)(g)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
which
reads
as
follows:
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
or
such
part
of
the
following
amounts
as
may
reasonably
be
regarded
as
applicable
thereto:
(g)
where
the
taxpayer
was
an
employee
of
a
person
whose
principal
business
was
passenger,
goods,
or
passenger
and
goods
transport
and
the
duties
of
the
employment
required
him,
regularly,
(i)
to
travel,
away
from
the
municipality
where
the
employer’s
establishment
to
which
he
reported
for
work
was
located
and
away
from
the
metropolitan
area,
if
there
is
one,
where
it
was
located,
on
vehicles
used
by
the
employer
to
transport
the
goods
or
passengers,
and
(ii)
while
so
away
from
such
municipality
and
metropolitan
area,
to
make
disbursements
for
meals
and
lodging,
amounts
so
disbursed
by
him
in
the
year
to
the
extent
that
he
has
not
been
reimbursed
and
is
not
entitled
to
be
reimbursed
in
respect
thereof,
the
appellant
had
684
meals
away
from
home.
Having
now
decided
the
number
of
meals
which
the
appellant
may
claim
pursuant
to
the
subparagraph
quoted
above,
the
next
matter
to
be
determined
is—What
amounts
did
the
appellant
disburse
for
those
meals?
As
we
know
from
the
evidence,
one
of
the
main
routes
driven
by
the
appellant
was
from
Calgary
to
Vancouver
and
return.
The
appellant
claimed
five
dollars
per
meal
as
a
disbursement.
The
Minister
only
allowed
three
dollars.
Mr.
Thiessen
swore
in
his
evidence,
and
I
accept
it
completely,
that
while
he
kept
no
record
of
each
and
every
expenditure
for
meals,
he
believed
five
dollars
per
meal
would
be
a
fair
average
price.
He
did
say
many
meals
cost
him
more
than
five
dollars.
In
the
course
of
the
hearing,
reference
was
made
to
the
decision
of
a
former
Chairman
of
this
Board,
K.
A.
Flanigan,
in
the
appeal
of
Donald
F
Homme
v
MNR,
[1975]
CTC
2026;
75
DTC
20.
That
appeal
related
to
a
similar
claim
but
for
the
1971
year
while
this
claim
relates
to
the
1975
year.
The
Minister
in
that
case
at
that
time
allowed
two
dollars
and
fifty
cents
per
meal
and
in
the
present
case
(four
years
later)
an
increase
of
fifty
cents
per
meal.
The
Chairman
in
that
case
held
that
nine
dollars
a
day
(the
amount
the
Minister
allowed
in
the
present
case)
was
“fair
and
reasonable
under
all
the
circumstances”.
I
find
the
sum
of
five
dollars
per
meal
or
fifteen
dollars
per
day
in
this
case
to
be
fair
and
reasonable
under
all
the
circumstances.
The
appeal
is
allowed
and
the
assessment
remitted
to
the
Minister
for
variation
accordingly.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content