Marceau,
J:—Plaintiff
is
appealing
the
decision
of
the
Tax
Review
Board,
refusing
him
the
right
to
deduct
in
calculating
his
income
for
the
years
1969,
1970
and
1971
certain
‘‘costs
of
canvassing
and
seeking
new
clients”,
which
he
contends
he
was
compelled
to
assume
in
order
to
fulfil
the
duties
of
his
job,
and
which
he
alleges
amounted
to
$1,979.06
the
first
year,
$2,311.90
the
second
and
$1,383.64
the
third
year.
Although
simple,
not
seriously
disputed,
and
moreover
proven
by
the
evidence,
the
facts
raise
a
problem
of
the
interpretation
and
application
of
subparagraph
5(1)(b)(v)
and
subsections
11(6),
(9)
and
(9a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
as
it
was
then
in
effect
(RSC
1952
c
148).
Plaintiff
was
employed
by
a
Montreal
firm
which
specialized
in
conducting
advertising
campaigns,
Maurice
Watier
Publicité
Ltée.
His
basic
duties
were
those
of
account
supervisor
and
in
this
capacity,
supported
by
a
team,
he
advised
the
firm’s
clients
and
ensured
that
the
obligations
which
the
business
had
assumed
toward
them
were
performed.
In
addition,
however,
he
had
to
endeavour
to
attract
new
clients
when
it
was
possible
to
do
so.
Most
of
his
normal
working
time
(75%
to
80%)
was
spent
in
his
office,
but
he
was
also
required
to
go
out
to
meet
already
established
clients,
or
even
possible
or
prospective
clients.
His
earnings
had
been
determined
on
the
basis
of
a
fixed
salary,
to
which
could
be
added
an
annual
bonus
“if
the
company’s
profits
allowed”,
including
an
allowance
of
$25
a
week
added
in
consideration
of
the
expenses
of
“seeking
new
clients”
which
he
might
have
to
assume.
Moreover,
upon
presentation
of
supporting
documents,
he
was
to
be
reimbursed
in
full
for
all
travel
or
representation
costs
necessitated
by
the
firm’s
regular
clients.
In
preparing
his
tax
returns,
plaintiff
naturally
did
not
take
into
account
costs
for
which
he
had
been
reimbursed
by
his
employer
upon
presentation
of
supporting
documents,
but
he
was
required
to
account
for
a
salary
which
included
the
allowance
of
$25
a
week.
It
is
at
this
point
that
he
claimed
that,
in
order
to
determine
the
taxable
portion,
he
could
deduct
from
his
gross
income
the
automobile
expenses
and
those
expenses,
generally
called
representation
costs,
which
seeking
new
clients
had
actually
caused
him.
Apparently
arguing
that
the
part
of
his
duties
devoted
to
seeking
new
clients
could
not
only
be
separated
from
the
other
parts,
but
even
characterize
the
whole,
he
endeavoured
to
maintain
that
he
came
within
the
conditions
required
by
subsection
11(9)
of
the
Act
for
a
salaried
employee
to
be
eligible
to
deduct
costs
of
this
nature.*
In
my
opinion,
the
strict
and
cumulative
conditions
of
subsection
11(9)
were
not
fulfilled.
The
employment
held
by
plaintiff
must
be
considered
as
a
whole,
even
though
part
of
the
earnings
received
from
it
were
determined
in
consideration
of
special
costs
incurred
by
certain
secondary
duties
which
it
involved.
Plaintiff
was
a
salaried
employee,
not
paid
on
commission.
He
was
not
ordinarily
required
to
carry
on
his
duties
away
from
his
employer’s
place
of
business.
Each
year
he
was
reimbursed
in
full
for
the
costs
which
he
had
incurred
through
his
dealings
with
the
company’s
clients,
to
which
his
activities,
as
account
supervisor,
were
mainly
devoted,
and
these
repayments
were
not
included
in
calculation
of
his
income
in
accordance
with
subparagraph
5(1)(b)(v)
of
the
Act.
The
appeal
should
therefore
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Email this Content