Delmer
E
Taylor:—This
is
an
appeal
against
an
income
tax
assessment
in
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
disallowed
an
amount
of
$1,531.65
claimed
by
the
appellant
as
travelling
expenses
for
the
year
1975.
The
respondent
relied,
inter
alia,
on
paragraphs
8(1)(h),
18(1
)(h)
and
subsection
8(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
RSC
1952,
c
148,
as
amended
by
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63
as
amended.
Facts
The
appellant
is
a
millwright,
governed
in
his
employment
by
the
collective
agreement
between
the
Association
of
Millwrighting
Contractors
of
Ontario,
and
the
United
Brotherhood
of
Carpenters
and
Joiners
of
America
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
‘‘the
union’’).
He
lived
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
and
belonged
to
the
Toronto
local
of
the
union.
He
was
assigned
to
and
accepted
employment
for
a
portion
of
the
year
in
question
with
the
firm
of
Lackie
Bros
Limited,
Kitchener,
Ontario
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
‘‘Lackie’’).
Some
of:
the
work
was
performed
for
Lackie
in
the
immediate
Kitchener
area.
The
appellant
maintained
meticulous
records
of
the
expenses
he
incurred
in
working
for
Lackie,
for
which
he
was
not
reimbursed.
He
was
not
reimbursed
because
of
clause
(1)
in
the
collective
agreement
which
reads:
There
shall
be
a
fifteen-mile
(direct
traffic
route)
zone
from
the
City
Hall
in
which
the
travel
and
board
allowances
will
not
apply
in
the
community
of
Kitchener
in
Zone
“A”.
Evidence
The
appellant
submitted
a
letter
from
Lackie
which
reads
as
follows:
Lackie
Bros
Limited
June
9,
1977
To
Whom
it
May
Concern:
This
is
to
certify
that
Mr
Ted
Felekidis
worked
for
Lackie
Bros
Limited
throughout
1975.
Mr
Felekidis
was
required
to
travel
from
his
Toronto
home
at
48
Sian
Avenue,
Scarborough,
to
the
Budd
Automotive
plant
in
Kitchener
daily.
He
was
not
compensated
by
the
company.
We
trust
this
is
the
information
required.
Yours
sincerely,
(signed)
David
H
Park
David
H
Park
Payroll
supervisor
Argument
The
fundamental
position
of
the
appellant
was
that
the,
alternative
available
to
him,
had
he
not
accepted
the
work
assignment
in
Kitchener,
was
to
go
on
the
unemployment
insurance
rolls.
Indeed
it
is
doubtful
that
he
could
have
refused
the
job
offer
(even
with
its
obvious
travelling
costs
and
inconvenience)
without
jeopardizing
his
position
with
the
union.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
provided
the
Board
with
the
case
of
Wilkinson
v
MNR,
41
Tax
ABC
106;
66
DTC
344,
and
pointed
out
that,
in
his
opinion,
it
was
unfortunate,
but
a
fact,
that
the
appellant’s
claim
could
not
be
allowed.
Findings
The
direct
and
straightforward
approach
of
the
appellant
and
the
simplicity
of
his
argument
could
not
help
but
impress
the
Board.
In
fact,
however,
there
is
no
basis
available
under
the
legislation
to
consider
the
expenses
he
incurred
as
anything
but
personal,
in
that
they
represented
a
requirement
to
report
to
his
place
of
employment
from
his
home
address.
A
recent
judgment
of
the
Federal
Court,
Trial
Division,
in
The
Queen
v
Thomas
Healy,
[1978]
CTC
355;
78
DTC
6239,
when
dealing
with
the
question
of
meal
allowances,
rejected
a
claim
from
a
taxpayer,
under
circumstances
not
unlike
those
before
the
Board
today.
Decision
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content