A
J
Frost:—This
is
an
income
tax
appeal
from
a
notice
of
assessment
dated
June
14,
1974,
in
respect
of
the
appellant’s
1973
taxation
year.
By
the
said
notice,
the
appellant’s
travelling
expenses
were
split
into
two
parts.
His
expenditures
for
meals
were
disallowed
while
other
travelling
expenses
were
allowed.
Meal
expenses
do
not
necessarily
form
part
of
normal
travelling
expenses
unless
they
qualify
under
the
provisions
of
subsection
8(4)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
This
provision
reads
as
follows:
8(4)
An
amount
expended
in
respect
of
a
meal
consumed
by
an
officer
or
employee
shall
not
be
Included
in
computing
the
amount
of
a
deduction
under
paragraph
(1)(f)
or
(h)
unless
the
meal
was
consumed
during
a
period
while
he
was
required
by
his
duties
to
be
away,
for
a
period
of
not
less
than
twelve
hours,
from
the
municipality
where
the
employer’s
establishment
to
which
he
ordinarily
reported
for
work
was
located
and
away
from
the
metropolitan
area,
if
there
Is
one,
where
it
was
located.
The
important
words
in
that
subsection
are
“the
employer’s
establishment
to
which
he
ordinarily
reports
for
work”.
The
appellant
has
been
employed
by
the
Jockey
Club
for
21
years
and
was
paid
on
a
per
diem
basis.
For
1973
he
worked
as
a
money-room
captain,
accounting
for
moneys
received
from
the
sale
of
pari-mutuel
tickets
at
three
race
tracks
owned
by
the
Jockey
Club
—
Woodbine,
Greenwood
and
Fort
Erie.
The
appellant
was
required
to
go
from
track
to
track
to
attend
these
race
meetings.
In
the
taxation
year
he
worked
90
days
at
Fort
Erie.
The
cost
of
meals
consumed
at
Fort
Erie,
amounting
to
$504,
was
disallowed
on
the
ground
that
these
meal
expenses
were
not
considered
to
qualify
under
the
Act,
whereas
motel
and
other
incidental
expenses
were
allowed.
The
question
at
issue
in
this
appeal
revolves
around
the
meaning
of
the
word
"ordinarily”
as
used
in
subsection
8(4)
of
the
Act.
Did
the
appellant
in
his
1974
taxation
year
ordinarily
report
for
work
at
Fort
Erie?
Counsel
for
the
appellant
contends
that
the
word
"ordinarily"
ts
elastic
and
could
have
shades
of
meaning
depending
on
the
context
in
which
the
word
is
used.
The
evidence
established
that
the
appellant
was
an
employee
residing
in
Toronto.
His
home
base
was
the
head
office
of
the
Jockey
Club
at
Toronto;
his
supervisors
from
whom
he
received
instructions
were
there;
he
received
his
salary
and
travel
expenses
there,
and
his
main
workload
was
there
to
be
performed
as
well.
Toronto
was
his
employer's
place
of
business.
Counsel
for
the
respondent,
in
his
argument,
said
he
thought
subsection
8(4)
of
the
Act
is
“clearly
written
recognizing
that
possibly
one
may
be
employed
at
two
different
establishments”.
He
also
submitted
that
no
significance
should
be
attached
to
the
fact
that
the
administration
offices
are
at
Woodbine.
With
respect
to
the
first
submission,
the
Board
agrees.
If
a
taxpayer
is
employed
on
a
regular
basis
at
two
establishments,
he
may
be
caught
by
paragraph
8(1
)(h)
of
the
Act
which
requires
that
the
employee,
in
order
to
qualify
for
the
travel
expense
deduction,
must
ordinarily
be
required
to
carry
out
his
duties
as
an
employee
away
from
his
employer’s
place
of
business
or
in
different
places.
In
order
to
be
able
to
claim
meal
expenses
as
a
deduction
the
taxpayer
must
first
of
all
comply
with
the
requirements.
I
find
that
the
appellant
In
this
case
falls
within
the
terms
of
subsection
8(4)
of
the
Act
and
that
he
should
be
permitted
to
claim
the
cost
of
his
meals
when
away
from
his
home
base,
Toronto,
on
business
for
longer
than
twelve
hours.
In
my
opinion,
"ordinarily"
as
used
in
subsection
8(4)
of
the
Act
means
something
you
do
almost
every
day.
Travelling
to
the
Fort
Erie
track
was
not
something
the
appellant
did
almost
every
day.
On
the
evidence,
it
seems
quite
clear
that
the
appellant
was
ordinarily
required
to
report
for
work
at
the
Jockey
Club’s
Toronto
office
and
not
at
the
Fort
Erie
track.
For
these
reasons
the
appeal
is
allowed.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content