Delmer
E
Taylor:—This
is
an
appeal
against
an
income
tax
assessment
in
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
disallowed
a
deduction
of
$17,057.13
claimed
for
the
year
1973
as
tuition
fees.
The
respondent
relied
inter
alia
upon
subsection
15(1),
and
paragraphs
60(e),
(f)
and
(g)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c.
63,
as
amended.
Facts
The
appellant
is
an
airline
pilot
with
Wardair
Canada
Ltd
and
the
training
in
question
was
for
skills
he
required
for
such
employment
in
flying
Boeing
707
aircraft
for
the
Company.
Such
training
could
be
taken
in
Canada
on
other
aircraft—Boeing
727,
737
and
747—but
not
the
707.
His
arrangements
were
made
with
the
student
training
facilities
of
Western
Air
Lines,
Inc
of
Los
Angeles,
California,
obviously
not
an
academic
institution
in
Canada,
and
agreed
by
both
parties
not
approved
for
such
training
by
the
Government
of
Canada.
The
result
of
the
added
proficiency
gained
by
the
appellant
has
been
a
substantial
increase
in
earning
capacity.
Contentions
The
appellant’s
position
can
be
summarized
as
pointing
up
a
deficiency
he
perceived
in
the
Income
Tax
Act
which
affected
him
adversely
for
no
apparent
sensible
reason.
Evidence
and
Argument
The
appellant
reviewed
the
facts
with
the
Board,
pointing
out
that
almost
any
type
of
aircraft
flying
training
(even
personal
and
for
pleasure)
was
deductible
to
the
extent
of
the
tuition
fees
and
that
had
the
training
been
available
in
Canada
he
would
certainly
have
taken
it
in
this
country.
From
the
respondent’s
viewpoint,
although
there
could
be
nothing
but-
sympathy
for
the
apparent
dilemma
the
income
tax
law
and
regulations
caused
to
this
taxpayer
and
nothing
but
commendation
for
his
effort
in
pursuing
his
employment
goal,
the
matter
by
definition
was
itself
outside
the
provisions
allowing
a
deduction
under
the
Act
—the
institution
was
not
accredited
and
it
was
not
in
Canada.
Findings
It
may
appear
that
to
deny
deductibility
of
training
cost
on
a
Boeing
707,
paid
for
at
personal
expense
even
though
taken
outside
Canada,
while
allowing
similar
training
on
the
other
Boeing
aircraft
is
patently
unfair.
That
however
is
not
precisely
the
point
at
issue.
Training
on
Boeing
727,
737
and
747
aircraft
is
available
in
Canada
but
if,
for
any
reason,
the
appellant
had
acquired
such
training
and
had
chosen
to
take
it
(on
727,
737
and
747)
outside
Canada
at
a
nonaccredited
institution,
such
cost
incurred
would
not
have
been
deductible
either.
It
can
only
be
assumed
that
the
fundamental
position
of
the
Parliament
of
Canada,
in
allowing
tuition
fee
deductibility,
was
to
reflect
the
general
need
in
employment
skills
of
Canada,
and
provide
for
these
to
the
greatest
degree
practical
in
taxable
deductions,
in
Canadian
institutions.
It
is
unavoidable
in
my
view
that
there
would
remain
advanced
academic
and
professional
specialties
for
career
and
income
earning
improvement
for
which
the
training
would
not
be
provided
in
this
country.
I
would
believe
this
to
be
particularly
true
in
medicine
and
science,
although
probably
of
some
consequence
in
every
field
of
endeavour.
A
small
provision
for
certain
circumstances
is
reflected
in
paragraph
60(g)
of
the
Act
when
a
taxpayer
commutes
to
an
institution
outside
this
country,
but
this
apparently
gives
relief
only
because
of
the
proximity
of
some
Canadian
taxpayers
to
the
border,
and
does
not
appear
to
me
to
indicate
any
modification
of
the
general
principle
evident
in
the
requirements
for
tuition
fee
deductibility—an
accredited
institution
in
Canada.
The
appellant
made
a
very
strong
point
that
such
training
(outside
Canada
at
a
non-accredited
institution)
paid
for
by
an
employer
(eg
Wardair)
would
have
been
deductible
by
that
corporation.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
agreed
that
this
would
probably
be
the
case.
One
could
draw
from
that
(as
was
done
by
the
appellant)
a
further
inconsistency—the
legislators
of
Canada
“subsidizing”
one
expense
(that
of
the
corporation)
and
refusing
the
other
(that
of
the
individual)
for
precisely
the
same
training.
It
should
be
noted,
there
is
at
least
one
difference—that
it
appears
Parliament
would
observe.
In
the
case
of
the
corporation
(eg
Wardair)
the
training
presumably
would
be
designed
to
provide
employment
in
Canada
by
a
Canadian
company;
in
the
case
of
the
individual
it
would
be
to
seek
employment
(although
perhaps
with
some
prior
assurance)
and
that
employment
or
practice
of
the
newly
acquired
skills
might
be
in
Canada
or
might
be
outside
of
Canada.
This
appellant
regards
the
expense
involved
in
his
Boeing
707
training
as
providing
him
with
skills
which
have
allowed
him
to
earn
greater
income
and
thereby
contribute,
through
income
taxes,
greater
amounts
to
the
Canadian
economy.
This
is
an
understandable
perspective
and
one
often
raised
in
these
circumstances.
It
is
equally
valid
however,
that,
if
the
initial
expenditure
claimed
is
to
be
subsidized
(through
income
tax
deductibility)
by
all
the
taxpayers
of
Canada
and
the
additional
or
special
skills
acquired
available
thereafter
solely
at
the
discretion
and
disposition
of
the
appellant,
this
should
be
done
within
rules
and
regulations
designed
(however
inadequately
or
incompletely)
to
utilize
to
the
utmost
the
training
facilities
currently
in
Canada.
Presumably
this
would
provide
the
skills
deemed
by
Parliament
as
most
needed
in
Canada.
That
any
citizen
might
for
good
reasons
wish
to
acquire
other
skills
(the
training
for
which
is
not
available
in
Canada)
is
highly
commendable
and
in
many
cases
of
great
benefit
to
Canada.
However,
it
is
evident
that
Parliament
has
attempted
in
the
legislation
to
support,
through
income
tax
deductions,
a
broad
spectrum
of
requirements,
rather
than
trying
to
accommodate
each
specific
situation.
The
basis
of
that
effort
by
Parliament
is
clear,
and
it
does
not
include
the
appellant’s
case.
Decision
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content