Delmer
E
Taylor:—This
is
an
appeal
from
an
income
tax
assessment
for
the
year
1974
in
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
disallowed
an
amount
of
$1,025.34
claimed
by
the
appellant
as
a
business
loss.
The
respondent
relied,
inter
alia,
on
sections
3,
4,
paragraph
8(1
)(i),
subsections
8(2)
and
248(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
RSC
1952,
c
148,
as
amended
by
section
1
of
c
63
of
SC
1970-71-72.
Facts
During
the
year
in
question
the
appellant
was
employed
as
a
research
officer
with
Environment
Canada
and
also
received
rémunéra-
tion
as
a
sessional
lecturer
giving
a
graduate
course
in
Applied
Hydrology
at
the
University
of
Ottawa.
In
his
capacity
with
Environment
Canada
his
salary
was
in
excess
of
$24,000,
and
he
received
$72
from
the
University
of
Ottawa,
from
which
he
sought
to
deduct
expenses
of
$1,097.34,
leaving
the
net
loss
claimed
of
$1,025.34.
There
was
no
disagreement
with
respect
to
the
details
of
the
amounts
involved,
merely
the
deductibility.
Contentions
The
appellant
contended
that
in
providing
the
lectures
he
was
pursuing
the
business
of
his
profession—as
an
engineer
in
Applied
Hydrology,
separate
and
distinct
from
his
role
as
an
employee
of
Environment
Canada,
and
as
such
(in
his
role
as
a
businessman)
he
was
entitled
to
the
applicable
deductions.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
asserted
that
the
appellant’s
income
from
the
University
of
Ottawa
was
from
employment
within
the
meaning
of
subsection
248(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Evidence
The
appellant
presented
certain
documents
intended
to
support
his
claim
that
he
continued
to
function
as
a
graduate
engineer
(distinguishable
from
research
officer)
and
that
his
role
at
the
University
was
just
one
part
of
this
effort.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
identified
and
submitted
copies
of
the
Contract
for
Part-Time
Teaching
between
the
University
and
the
appellant,
and
the
relevant
T4
wage
slip
for
1974.
Argument
The
appellant
claimed
his
position
to
be
identical
to
that
in
James
Sim
v
MNR,
[1966]
CTC
383;
66
DTC
5276,
in
which
it
had
been
held
that
external
university
lecturing
was
“an
educational
pursuit
or
business”.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
submitted
that
the
Contract
for
Part-Time
Teaching
was
an
employment
contract,
and
that
in
addition
to
the
Sim
case
(supra),
the
Board
should
consider
the
following:
H
Lionel
Rosen
v
The
Queen,
[1976]
CTC
462;
76
DTC
6274;
Donald
B
MacDonald
v
MNR,
[1974]
CTC
2204;
74
DTC
1161;
Dr
W
H
Alexander
v
MNR,
[1970]
Ex
CR
139;
[1969]
CTC
715;
70
DTC
6006;
Market
Investigations
Ltd
v
Minister
of
Social
Security,
[1968]
3
All
ER
732:
Stevenson
Jordan
&
Harrison
Ltd
v
MacDonald
and
Evans,
[1952]
1
TLR
101;
Morren
v
Swinton
&
Pendlebury
Borough
Council,
[1965]
2
All
ER
349.
Findings
It
is
the
opinion
of
the
Board
that
there
are
areas
of
distinction
between
the
Sim
case
(supra)
and
that
of
the
appellant
and
that
notwithstanding
some
similarities
between
the
two,
there
has
been
considerable
clarification
and
precision
given
in
the
more
recent
cases
cited
by
counsel
for
the
respondent,
in
particular
in
Alexander
v
MNR
(supra).
The
contention
that
the
efforts
of
the
appellant
at
the
University
were
such
as
to
endow
him
with
the
characteristics
of
an
independent
contractor,
in
the
business
of
providing
his
specific
professional
services
as
an
engineer
to
clients,
on
a
generally
public
plane,
would
require
evidence
and
support
of
more
substance
than
that
which
has
been
provided
to
the
Board.
Decision
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content