Guy
Tremblay:—This
case
was
heard
at
Toronto,
Ontario,
on
June
27,
1979.
1.
Point
at
Issue
The
problem
is
whether
the
appellant,
a
Roman
Catholic
priest,
professor
and
student
chaplain
at
St
Lawrence
College
in
Cornwall,
Ontario,
is
correct
in
deducting
from
his
salary
the
amount
of
$2,014.27
representing
automobile
expenses.
2.
Burden
of
Proof
The
burden
is
on
the
appellant
to
show
that
the
respondent’s
assessment
is
incorrect.
This
burden
of
proof
results
especially
from
several
judicial
decisions,
including
the
judgment
delivered
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
in
R
W
S
Johnston
v
MNR,
[1948]
CTC
195;
3
DTC
1182.
3.
The
Facts
3.01
During
the
year
1975,
the
appellant
was
a
Roman
Catholic
priest
in
the
Diocese
of
Alexandria,
Cornwall.
He
was
not
a
designated
parish
priest.
3.02
During
that
year,
however,
he
was
professor
and
student
chaplain
at
the
St
Lawrence
College
in
Cornwall,
Ontario,
and
at
SD
&
G
County
Board
of
Education,
Cornwall,
Ontario.
3.03
He
received
$2,435.07
from
SD
&
G
County
Board
of
Education
and
$9,988.70
from
St
Lawrence
College.
3.04
The
salary
he
received
from
St
Lawrence
College
was
only
as
a
teacher
and
not
as
student
chaplain.
Moreover,
Rev
Ostler’s
travelling
to
fulfil
teaching
functions
was
never
required
by
the
authority
of
the
College.
3.05
However,
he
had
to
travel
to
fulfil
his
function
of
student
chaplain
for
which
he
received
no
salary.
3.06
In
the
notice
of
appeal,
the
following
facts
were
alleged
and
were
admitted
by
the
respondent
at
the
hearing:
The
appellant
in
the
1975
tax
year
received
an
income
from
St
Lawrence
College.
His
primary
duties
for
the
college
were
those
pertaining
to
his
chaplaincy
work
at
the
college
(documentation
is
on
file
regarding
this
point).
Necessary
travelling
expenses
were
incurred
in
the
completion
of
the
duties
as
chaplain.
Normally,
a
salary
will
be
provided
by
the
Church
(in
particular,
the
Diocese
of
Alexandria—Cornwall)
for
the
performance
of
these
duties
as
chaplain.
A
portion
of
this
income
is
expected
to
be
used
to
pay
for
the
necessary
travelling
expenses
which
are
incurred
in
chaplaincy
work.
However,
in
order
to
provide
a
route
of
communication
to
the
student
which
would
aid
in
chaplaincy
work
at
the
college,
a
teaching
job
was
secured
at
the
college
and
thus
formed
the
appellant’s
secondary
duties
at
the
college.
The
policy
at
the
college
did
not
permit
a
salary
for
a
chaplain,
and
thus
the
entire
salary
received
by
the
appellant
from
the
college
was
totally
from
his
teaching
duties.
Since
a
salary
from
outside
the
Church
was
received
by
the
appellant,
no
salary
from
the
Church
was
paid
to
Rev
Ostler.
3.07
In
computing
his
income
for
the
1975
taxation
year,
the
appellant
sought
to
deduct
the
amount
of
$2,014.27
as
automobile
expenses.
3.08
The
respondent
disallowed
those
expenses.
4.
Law—Comments
4.1
Law
The
main
paragraph
of
the
new
Income
Tax
Act
involved
in
the
present
case
is
8(1)(h)
which
reads
as
follows:
Deductions
allowed.
(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
or
such
part
of
the
following
amounts
as
may
reasonably
be
regarded
as
applicable
thereto:
(h)
Travelling
expenses—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.
4.2
Comments
According
to
the
wording
of
the
above-cited
section,
the
expenses
must
be
applied
against
the
salary
to
which
the
travel
expenses
are
involved.
In
the
present
case,
the
only
earned
salary
is
for
teaching
and
no
travelling
was
required
to
fulfil
this
function
(see
paragraph
3.04
of
the
Facts).
As
the
Income
Tax
Act
must
be
strictly
interpreted,
according
to
the
wording
of
the
section
and
not
according
to
the
deemed
intention
of
the
legislator,
the
Board
has
no
choice
but
to
maintain
the
assessment
and
dismiss
the
appeal.
It
would
be
different
however
if
the
contract
of
teaching
had
been
entered
into
[with]
the
Diocese
(which
is
a
legal
entity)
for
the
employment
of
a
priest
and
if
the
salary
would
have
been
paid
to
the
Diocese.
The
Diocese
could
nominate
the
appellant
as
student
chaplain
and
pay
him
for
that
function.
It
is
my
opinion
that
the
wording
of
paragraph
8(1
)(h)
would
have
been
respected.
5.
Conclusion
The
appeal
is
dismissed
in
accordance
with
the
above
reasons
for
judgment.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content