Subsection 118.041(1)
Qualifying Expenditure
Paragraph (g)
Cases
Patrie v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 276 (Informal Procedure)
The house of the taxpayer and his wife had rickety stairs leading down to the yard. To address increasing mobility issues of his wife, the taxpayer replaced these with a deck with a 5-foot wide stairway and aluminum railing – and claimed the $10,000 home accessibility tax credit. CRA was bothered that, with the exception perhaps of the railing, this was what anyone who was trying to improve his home might have built. The definition of “qualifying expenditure” excluded an outlay or expense “made or incurred primarily for the purpose of increasing or maintaining the value of the eligible dwelling.”
In the course of allowing the taxpayer’s appeal, Bocock J stated (at para. 19):
The intention to add or maintain value must be primary. Absent some evidence that the taxpayer foremost sought to improve or maintain the value of the property and only secondarily solve accessibility, the exclusion in sub-paragraph (g) of being “primarily undertaken” to increase or maintain value cannot be sustained.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 118.041 - Subsection 118.041(1) - Qualifying Renovation | deck and stairway were constructed for mobility or harm-avoidance reasons | 149 |
Qualifying Renovation
See Also
Patrie v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 276 (Informal Procedure)
Rickety stairs increasingly interfered with the access of the taxpayer’s wife (who had progressing mobility issues and was acknowledged to be an “eligible individual”) to their yard. They replaced the steps with a sturdy deck, a 5-foot wide stairway and aluminum railing.
Before finding that the taxpayer was entitled to the $10,000 credit, Bocock J first addressed the “qualifying renovation” definition, and found that the deck had been constructed inter alia to enable access to, or to be mobile or functional within the house (noting, in this regard, at para. 14, that “[i]t is a minimum threshold not an exclusive purpose-test. The words “solely”, “principally” or “singly” do not appear in this sub-paragraph,”) and also that the “risk of harm” test was satisfied (stating, at para. 16, that the five conditions in the definition were disjunctive, so that only one of these conditions need be met).
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 118.041 - Subsection 118.041(1) - Qualifying Expenditure - Paragraph (g) | a value-enhancing home renovation could qualify for home accessibility tax credit purposes | 169 |
Subsection 118.041(3)
Administrative Policy
15 March 2016 External T.I. 2015-0606911E5 F - Home Accessibility Tax Credit
Can the HATC be claimed if the individual who makes or incurs an expenditure respecting a dwelling is not a "qualifying individual" or an "eligible individual." CRA responded (TI translation):
a qualifying individual or an eligible individual cannot claim the HATC if an individual other than the qualifying individual or the eligible individual makes or incurs the outlay or expenditure in relation to the eligible dwelling of the qualifying individual or the eligible individual.