Cases
James v. Canada, 2003 DTC 5269, 2003 FCA 164
The taxpayer, who had no income from employment or from carrying on business at a new work location from which to deduct moving expenses, was not entitled to deduct moving expenses from his dividend income.
Templeton v. R., 97 DTC 5216, [1998] 3 CTC 207 (FCTD)
The taxpayer, who maintained a home office at his principal residence in Penetanguishene although he rented a residence in Toronto as a place to stay while working at a Toronto radio station, was terminated by the radio station and purchased a new residence in Toronto which he also used as his office for work as an author and inventor. His expenses of moving to the new Toronto residence were deductible given that "it is realistic, logical and in context with the reality of Canadian life to understand that a person's residence might very well be the same as his or her work location". (p. 5219).
Giannakopoulos v. The Queen, 95 DTC 5477, [1995] 2 CTC 316 (FCA)
In finding that the 40-kilometre distance should be measured on the basis of the shortest normal route to the travelling public rather than in a straight line, Marceau J.A. stated (at p. 5478):
"A realistic measurement of travelling distance is necessary in order to give effect to the purpose of the provision. The straight line method bears no relation to how an employee travels to work."
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Context | 83 |
Mallett v. The Queen, 92 DTC 6537, [1992] 2 CTC 229 (FCTD)
A government employee (who was deemed under s. 250(1) to be resident in Canada) was told in the spring of 1985 that she would be transferred from her position in the Canadian embassy in Paris to a position in Ottawa. In August 1985 she married a man whose home was in England and from that time until her move to Ottawa in December 1985, she commuted between Paris and England. In finding that she was not ordinarily resident in England prior to her move to Ottawa, McGillis J. noted that "to the extent that she spent time at the home in England, she only resided there casually until her move to her new home in Ottawa" (p. 6539).
The Queen v. Collin, 90 DTC 6369, [1990] 2 CTC 92 (FCTD)
In order to enter into an agreement for the sale of his home, the taxpayer agreed to pay $5,811 to the purchaser's mortgage lender in order to reduce the rate of interest on the purchaser's mortgage from 25% to 17%. Martin J. found that the taxpayer's direct and immediate object in making the payment was to effect the sale and that the payment therefore was properly characterized as a selling cost.
Rath v. The Queen, 82 DTC 6175, [1982] CTC 207 (FCA)
Neither losses sustained when household and other goods were destroyed by a warehouse fire in the course of a move, nor the costs of replacement goods were "amounts paid ... as or on account of moving expenses" within the ordinary meaning of that expression. They also did not qualify under S.62(3)(b).
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 161 - Subsection 161(1) | 265 | |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 178 - Subsection 178(1) | 33 |
Storrow v. The Queen, 78 DTC 6551, [1978] CTC 792 (FCTD)
"Only outlays incurred to effect the physical transfer of the taxpayer, his household and their belongings to the new residence are deductible". The natural and ordinary meaning of the expression "moving expenses", "does not include (except as may be specifically delineated in ss.62(3)) such things as the increase in cost of the new accommodation over the old (whether by virtue of sale, lease, or otherwise), the cost of installing household items taken from the old residence to the new, or the cost of replacing or re-fitting household items from the old residence (such as drapes, carpeting, etc.)".
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Interpretation/Definition Provisions | "includes" does not subtract ordinary meaning | 46 |
Gold v. The Queen, 77 DTC 5430, [1977] CTC 616 (FCTD)
The deductible expenses of the taxpayer's move from Montreal to Ottawa did not include the living and tuition expenses for the following year of his son who completed his high school studies in Montreal rather than coming to Ottawa to complete his final year. "[T]he words 'moving expenses' mean the expenses incurred in physically moving and in actually changing residence and certain other very specific expenses relating directly to the actual move and reinstallation and do not mean an amount to compensate for incidental disturbances or damages not related to the actual move and reinstallation in the new residence."
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 9 - Capital Gain vs. Profit - Shares | 64 |
See Also
Sirivar v. The Queen, 2014 DTC 1052 [at 2925], 2014 TCC 24 (Informal Procedure)
The taxpayer, a CRA employee, relocated from Ottawa to Toronto to take a new position with CRA. Before having a chance to purchase a Toronto home, he was required to return to Ottawa for a 20-week period to work on a large tax appeal. For that period, it was also uncertain which CRA office the taxpayer would end up at. The taxpayer claimed $4975 in resulting room rental costs as a moving expense, which the Minister denied based on the 15-day limit in s. 62(3)(c).
Hogan J found that the words "meals and lodging" did s. 62(3)(c) applied to "room and board" expenses and did not apply to lodgings alone, and hence neither did the 15-day restriction - although, in any event, s. 62(3) is an "includes" list that merely extends the ordinary meaning of "moving expenses" in s. 62(1). The room rental costs were moving expenses, given that (para. 15):
[T]he Appellant's employer prolonged the completion of the Appellant's move to Toronto. ... The Appellant should not be penalized for accommodating the needs of his employer.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 - Subsection 62(3) | lodging v. room and board | 103 |
Higgins v. The Queen, 96 DTC 1291 (TCC)
The "shortest normal route" for the taxpayer to take to his new place of employment was by ferry, a distance of under 20 kilometres, even though it may have been occasionally inconvenient for him because of freezing conditions on the Fraser River or the line-ups waiting for the ferry. Accordingly, his moving expenses were not deductible. [From his former residence]
McLay v. MNR, 92 DTC 2260, [1992] 2 CTC 2649 (TCC)
No portion of the capital loss realized by the taxpayer when he sold his Vancouver home in connection with his relocation to Newfoundland was deductible. "The only connection between this loss and the Appellant's move is the fact that his move forced the realization of a pre-existing loss which had accrued from market conditions" (p. 2266).
However, mortgage interest on the Vancouver home from the time he purchased the replacement residence in Newfoundland to the time of disposition of the Vancouver home was deductible given that such interest was incurred as a direct consequence of his move.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 6 - Subsection 6(1) - Paragraph 6(1)(b) | 78 |
Rennie v. MNR, 90 DTC 1050, [1990] 1 CTC 2141 (TCC)
In 1981 the taxpayer deducted expenses in moving from the family home in Montreal to a temporary residence in Edmonton and in 1983 he deducted further expenses incurred in connection with moving from Edmonton to Victoria to take up a new teaching position. It was held that he could not deduct in 1984 expenses incurred in connection with moving in 1984 his family's effects from the Montreal home to Victoria. The evidence established that in 1984 the taxpayer was "ordinarily resident" in Victoria, and there was "no authority that holds that a person can be ordinarily resident in two places at the same time."
Bayette v. The Queen, 89 DTC 701, [1989] T.C.J. No. 1001, [1990] 1 CTC 2001
An individual who changed his job location in December 1981, but commuted 110 kilometres daily until his move in October 1986 "by reasons of poor supply of homes, his lack of equity in his original house, high interest rates ... and intermittent health problems," was entitled to the deduction.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Eligible Relocation | 151 |
Administrative Policy
5 January 1995 Income Technical News, No. 6
The 40-kilometre distance is to be measured as the shortest normal route available to the travelling public.
22 June 1994 External T.I. 9415195 - DELAY IN MOVING AFTER JOB RELOCATION
Where the taxpayer was required to change work locations on February 1992, listed his house for sale but because of market conditions was unable to sell it until June 1994 with a September 1994 closing date, and during the interim period rented an apartment at the new location while his wife and children remained behind at the former location, it would appear that the leased accommodation was not his ordinary place of residence prior to the time that his family joined him. Accordingly, he would be considered to have moved in 1994 rather than in 1992.
2 December 1993 Income Tax Severed Letter 9313197 - Moving Expenses—GST on New Home Purchase
GST paid on the purchase of a new home is not considered a tax "imposed on the transfer or registration of title" to a new residence as described in s. 62(3)(f) and, therefore, does not qualify as an eligible moving expense. However, GST paid on otherwise eligible moving expenses is deductible as a moving expense.
22 June 1993 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 32, p. 21, ¶2624)
The cost of moving a house with its contents is deductible where such cost is not more than the estimated cost of moving the personal effects separately.
4 March 1992 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 17, p. 23, ¶1780)
Any moving expenses incurred by a doctoral graduate from a foreign university to move to or from Canada in respect of a fellowship to engage in research at a Canadian university for up to two years will not be deductible.
91 CPTJ - Q.23
Re deduction of moving expenses where a student moves outside Canada to attend school.
2 July 1991 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 5, p. 20, ¶1331)
Re deductibility of moving expense incurred by university instructors employed in one city who are granted a leave of absence to pursue studies at a university in another city.
88 C.R. - Q.53
A taxpayer receiving a moving allowance in connection with a temporary move to the United States will not be allowed to deduct moving expenses, notwithstanding his retention of Canadian residency.
Articles
Finley, "Staggered Relocations May Disqualify Moving Expenses", Taxation of Executive Compensation and Retirement, November 1990, p. 358.
Subsection 62(1) - Moving expenses
See Also
Olney v. The Queen, 2014 DTC 1193 [at 3732], 2014 TCC 262 (Informal Procedure)
C Miller J found that the taxpayer (who had a severe disability) could not treat the cost of a "scouting trip" into Calgary as part of her moving expenses to Calgary.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 118.2 - Subsection 118.2(2) - Paragraph 118.2(2)(b.1) | "attendant care" needs an "attendant" but otherwise is broadly construed | 170 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 118.2 - Subsection 118.2(2) - Paragraph 118.2(2)(l.9) | "general supervision" included doctor's giving of instructions, via the patient, to a personal trainer | 111 |
Evangélist v. The Queen, 2013 DTC 1095 [at 515], 2013 TCC 62 (Informal Procedure)
Lamarre J found that there was nothing in s. 62(1) that required that moving expenses be incurred in the year they are deducted rather than a prior year. Therefore, the taxpayer's expenses for moving his belongings to a friend's house in 2010 gave rise to a deduction in 2012 when he finally found employment.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Eligible Relocation | no requirement to deduct expenses in the year they are incurred | 53 |
Administrative Policy
S1-F3-C4 - Moving Expenses
Payment by spouse
4.15 Any portion of an individual’s moving expenses paid by someone else is not eligible for deduction by the individual. However, provided the conditions in ¶4.3 (or ¶4.4) and ¶4.13 are met, the CRA generally allows an individual to deduct moving expenses paid by the individual’s spouse or common-law partner. The CRA also allows spouses or common-law partners to decide how the deduction will be shared when they each have an eligible relocation as a result of the same change in residence. In all cases, the same moving expense can only be deducted once.
Timing of deductions
4.16 An individual may not deduct moving expenses until they are paid. For example, where an individual moves and incurs a moving truck expense in year 1, but does not pay the invoice for the moving truck expense until year 2, the earliest that the moving expense could be deducted is in year 2 (subject to the conditions in ¶4.13).
4. 17 An individual may not deduct moving expenses paid in a year until the eligible relocation has occurred. For example, where an individual pre-pays a one-way airfare in year 1 in respect of an eligible relocation that does not occur until year 2, the earliest that the airfare expense may be deducted is in year 2 (subject to the conditions in ¶4.13).
4.18 If an employee or self-employed individual’s total moving expenses eligible for deduction exceed income at the new work location, the excess expenses can be deducted in a subsequent year, to the extent of the income at that work location for that subsequent year. ...
Simplified computation method
4.25 ... Information on the requirements for receipts and the calculation of meal and vehicle expenses under the detailed and the simplified methods is available on the CRA webpage entitled Meal and vehicle rates used to calculate travel expenses. ...
Alternative treatment of selling costs
4.29 Selling costs incurred on the sale of the old residence and that are otherwise eligible as moving expenses, may be treated in one of the following ways. They may be:
a) taken into account in the calculation of the gain or loss arising from disposing of the property or;
b) deducted in accordance with section 62.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| 631 | ||
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 - Subsection 62(3) | 462 | |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Eligible Relocation | 894 |
3 June 2013 External T.I. 2013-0486911E5 F - Frais de déménagement- réinstallations multiples
In 2011, due to a change in employment, the taxpayer moved from the taxpayer’s old residence ("Residence A") to an apartment ("Residence B") in another city, but before moving to Residence B, looked for another residence in that other city and did not find a new residence ("Residence C") there until 2013 and, as a result, moved from Residence B to Residence C. The 40-kilometre test was satisfied. Were expenses incurred in 2012 to move from Residence B to Residence C are deductible in computing the taxpayer’s 2012 income? After listing eight tests to be applied in determining whether a residence was “ordinarily occupied” by a taxpayer, CRA stated:
Assuming that the relocation from Residence A to Residence B is an eligible relocation, only the eligible moving expenses from Residence A to Residence B will be deductible in computing the taxpayer's income, provided that all the conditions in sections 62 and 67 are satisfied. …
[If] moving from Residence B to Residence C was done to allow the taxpayer to occupy an employment … [and] assuming that the two relocations, from Residence A to Residence B, and Residence B to Residence C, are eligible relocations, the eligible relocation expenses for both relocations will be deductible in computing the taxpayer's income, provided all conditions in sections 62 and 67 are satisfied. …
If it is established on the facts that the taxpayer did not ordinarily reside at Residence B before ordinarily residing at Residence C, we will consider that a single relocation from Residence A to Residence C has occurred, and that relocation took place in two stages. If this relocation is an eligible relocation, the eligible moving expenses related to the move from Residence A to Residence C will be deductible in computing the taxpayer's income, provided that all of the conditions in sections 62 and 67 are satisfied.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 - Subsection 62(3) - Paragraph 62(3)(f) | inspection fee for new residence not included | 306 |
Paragraph 62(1)(c)
Administrative Policy
22 August 2007 External T.I. 2007-0242721E5 F - Frais de déménagement engagés par un étudiant
Can a student can deduct moving expenses, originally incurred in order to attend a post-secondary institution, against employment income related to the student’s post-secondary training or against other employment income, regardless of whether the employment is located in the region of the educational institution or in any other region? CRA responded:
The 2006 Federal Budget announced an increase in the scholarship and bursary exemption so that … a student can no longer deduct moving expenses where the student’s income is derived solely from scholarships or fellowships.
Thus, in the situation you presented, a student who incurs moving expenses to pursue post-secondary education cannot deduct those expenses against future employment income - whether or not the employment is located in the region of the educational institution - related to the new training.
However, a student who incurs moving expenses both to pursue post-secondary education and to take up employment - as opposed to employment obtained after the completion of post-secondary education - would be able to deduct the moving expenses against employment income provided the move constitutes an eligible relocation.
Subparagraph 62(1)(c)(ii)
Finance
2018 APFF Financial Strategies and Instruments Roundtable, Q.9
Students can only deduct their eligible expenses of moving 40 kilometres closer to their postsecondary institution from scholarship and research grant income and not from educational assistance payments received out of a registered education savings plan. What is the tax policy rationale for this? Finance responded:
To facilitate the mobility of workers in Canada, taxpayers who move to occupy an employment, to carry on a business or to pursue higher education can deduct eligible moving expenses from their income.
…[A] student may deduct from amounts taxable as scholarships (including scholarships, fellowships, bursaries and arts grants) and in respect of taxable research grants. In addition, that person can deduct the portion of eligible moving expenses, that exceed such bursaries and grants, from income from an employment in the location if the facts show that the move was intended to both pursue education and employment (such as a full-time student who also moves to take up an employment).
Section 62 of the Act is a relieving measure since moving expenses can be an obstacle to an individual who must relocate in order to pursue higher education and receive scholarships or research grants.
In terms of tax policy, an individual’s scholarships and research grants are more closely tied to a relocation site than income from a registered education savings plan.
In addition, scholarships, research grants and employment income are received directly by an individual, which is not the case for education assistance payments from registered education savings plans that may include investment income, amounts paid by the Government of Canada to help with education savings (such as the Canada Education Savings Grant and the Canada Learning Bond) and provincial student assistance program amounts.
Subsection 62(3)
Cases
Johnston v. Canada, 2003 DTC 5295, 2003 FCA 185
When the taxpayer moved to Winnipeg, he received two mortgage loans on his Toronto home to finance the acquisition of a Winnipeg home, and then paid off the loans two months later when he sold the Toronto home. Sharlow J.A. held (at p. 5297) that:
"The definition of 'moving expenses', read in its entirety, indicates that interest on money borrowed to purchase a home in the new work location is not within the definition, even if the loan is secured by a mortgage on a home in the former work location."
See Also
Sirivar v. The Queen, 2014 DTC 1052 [at 2925], 2014 TCC 24 (Informal Procedure)
In the course of finding that the taxpayer's nearly $5000 of room rental costs (over 20 weeks) in the course of a move were deductible as moving expenses (see summary under s. 62(1) - "moving expenses"), Hogan J stated (at para. 14):
[T]he appellant's claim is for lodging alone, which is not specifically covered by paragraph 62(3)(c). In my opinion, the provision contemplates a claim for room and board expenses. If Parliament had intended to restrict lodging to 15 days, it would have done so explicitly. Paragraph 62(3)(c) is meant to include things that might not otherwise be considered "moving expenses."
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 | employer's conduct prolonged move | 181 |
Vollmer v. The Queen, 2011 DTC 1139 [at 752], 2011 TCC 174 (Informal Procedure)
The taxpayers' legal fees associated with a move were not deductible as part of an eligible relocation, given that they were incurred to defend against a custody motion from his wife.
Renaud v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1094 [at 2994], 2010 2010 TCC 76
The taxpayer made an eligible relocation to a residence in another town. Rather than sell his old residence, he rented it, which effected a deemed disposition under s. 45(1)(a). However, Campbell J. found at para. 9 that, while "sold" means "disposed of by sale," the effect of 45(1)(a) was a disposition other than by sale. Therefore, the taxpayer was not eligible to include the s. 62(3)(f) amount in his claimed "moving expenses."
Beaudoin v. The Queen, 2005 DTC 282, 2005 TCC 94 (Informal Procedure)
The taxpayer's employer moved locations in 1997, but the taxpayer maintained his home in the first location until the fall of 2003, when he moved to the new location. Various expenses incurred in this move wee eligible for the deduction.
Jaggers v. R., 97 DTC 1317, [1997] 3 C.T.C. 2372 (TCC)
The taxpayer was able to deduct the costs associated with his move to a new residence and those associated with the sale of his former residence notwithstanding that the sale of his former residence did not occur until approximately two years after the time of his move: he was uncertain for some time as to whether he would keep his new job, and for reasons of commercial morality he did not immediately evict the tenants who occupied his former residence when he finally felt comfortable enough to sell his former residence.
Bowman TCJ., in finding that the Act does not require that the moving costs be incurred in the year of the move, noted that the Dale case established "that subsequent events can affect the calculation of income in a preceding year" (p. 1320).
Graham v. The Queen, 97 DTC 1074 (TCC)
The taxpayer, who was transferred by his employer (the Federal Government) from Ottawa to Victoria in November 1992, moved immediately to Victoria to stay in rented premises while leaving his wife and child in their Ottawa house until it was sold approximately six months' later. Insurance, taxes, mortgage interest and hydro incurred during that period in respect of the Ottawa house were "selling costs" and, accordingly, qualified for deduction as moving expenses.
Administrative Policy
S1-F3-C4 - Moving Expenses
List of eligible moving expenses
4.22 Under subsection 62(3), moving expenses that are eligible include ...
a) travel costs, including reasonable amounts spent for meals, lodging and the use of a vehicle (see ¶4.25) incurred in the process of moving the individual and members of the individual’s household from the old residence to the new residence. ...
b) the cost of transporting and storing household effects (including items such as boats and trailers) in the process of moving from the old residence to the new residence;
c) the cost of meals and lodging incurred near the old residence or the new residence for a period not exceeding 15 days;
d) the cost of cancelling a lease for the old residence. ... [A] lease would generally be cancelled when the terms of the lease allowing for the cancellation are satisfied or the lease is assigned (that is, another person takes over the lease with the permission of the landlord). ...
e) costs related to the sale of the old residence... . If a loan was used to finance the old residence, selling costs also include mortgage or hypothec prepayment penalties and costs to extinguish the hypothec or discharge the mortgage.
Costs for the sale of the old residence do not include expenses for improvements or repairs done to make the property more saleable or any loss incurred on the sale. ...
f) legal fees related to the purchase of the new residence as well as taxes, fees, and duties (other than any goods and services tax or value-added tax) on the transfer or registration of title to the new residence. ...
g) interest, property taxes, insurance premiums and the cost of heating and utilities in respect of the old residence. These expenses are limited to those incurred for the period in which reasonable efforts are made to sell the old residence, to a maximum of $5,000. ... Furthermore, during this period, the old residence cannot be ordinarily occupied by the individual or by any other person who ordinarily resided there with the individual immediately before the move... .
h) the cost of changing legal documents to reflect the address of the individual’s new residence, replacing drivers’ licences and non-commercial vehicle permits (excluding any cost for vehicle insurance) as well as connecting or disconnecting utilities. ...
4.23 Moving expenses are not intended to include costs that are incidental to the move to the new residence, such as those incurred to replace damaged or lost goods.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| 631 | ||
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 - Subsection 62(1) | 442 | |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Eligible Relocation | 894 |
14 August 2014 External T.I. 2014-0527271E5 - Moving expenses
CRA… provides spouses and common-law partners with some flexibility in claiming moving expenses. The CRA allows the spouses or common-law partners to decide how the deduction will be claimed (e.g., 100% by one spouse, 50/50) provided the requirements of section 62 of the Act have otherwise been met. In other words, a taxpayer may deduct lease cancellation costs where his or her spouse was the lessee, provided the costs otherwise qualify. …
"Costs of cancelling the lease" includes additional penalties or administrative fees charged by a landlord….[and] may include rental payments (e.g., forfeiture of last month deposit). However, where the rental unit is occupied by the taxpayer or members of his or her household during the period for which the rent is paid, it is the CRA's view that the rental payments would not be considered "costs of cancelling a lease"… .
12 November 2013 External T.I. 2012-0471621E5 F - Moving expenses - eligible relocation
In commenting on the eligibility of the expenses of a tune-up of the taxpayer’s car before a move, CRA stated:
We are of the view that the expenses of tuning-up your car before you depart to go from your old residence to your new residence are not eligible moving expenses. In the case of an automobile, we generally accept reasonable gas and oil expenses where those expenses are eligible travel expenses.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Eligible Relocation | a multiple move may consist of one or more eligible relocations, and if there is one eligible relocation from Residence 1 to 3, the intermediate moving costs can be deductible | 416 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 - Subsection 62(3) - Paragraph 62(3)(a) | costs of moving pets by air could qualify | 84 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 - Subsection 62(3) - Paragraph 62(3)(b) | moving furniture to ultimate residence could qualify if not ordinarily residing at intermediate residence | 269 |
26 June 1995 Internal T.I. 9509556 - MOVING EXPENSES
"Mortgage interest costs on the old residence are neither a selling cost nor a moving expense. If the interest cost of continuing to hold the old home until an acceptable price for it can be obtained or for some other reason represents a cost arising from 'keeping' the old home, not selling it."
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 - Subsection 62(3) | 29 |
26 June 1995 Internal T.I. 9509556 - MOVING EXPENSES
Mortgage interest expenses on the former residence do not qualify as a selling cost or moving expense notwithstanding the decision in McLay v. MNR, 92 DTC 2260.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 - Subsection 62(3) | 57 |
Paragraph 62(3)(a)
Administrative Policy
12 November 2013 External T.I. 2012-0471621E5 F - Moving expenses - eligible relocation
Can expenses of transporting the taxpayer’s cat by plane qualify? CRA responded:
We consider pets such as dogs, cats and birds to be members of the taxpayer's household for the purposes of paragraph 62(3)(a).
…Thus, the expenses paid for the transport of a cat by air may be eligible to the extent that they are reasonable in the circumstances and it is reasonable to move the cat by air.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Eligible Relocation | a multiple move may consist of one or more eligible relocations, and if there is one eligible relocation from Residence 1 to 3, the intermediate moving costs can be deductible | 416 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 - Subsection 62(3) - Paragraph 62(3)(b) | moving furniture to ultimate residence could qualify if not ordinarily residing at intermediate residence | 269 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 - Subsection 62(3) | reasonable gas expenses but not car tune-up costs can qualify | 81 |
Paragraph 62(3)(b)
Administrative Policy
12 November 2013 External T.I. 2012-0471621E5 F - Moving expenses - eligible relocation
In 2013, the taxpayer and spouse moved from Residence A to furnished accommodation (Residence B) in order for the taxpayer’s spouse to attend a full-time program at a university in Canada. In 2014, in order for the spouse to take up a new job, they will move from Residence B to Residence C. In the meantime, they wish transport their furniture to Residence C for storage there.
Would the expenses incurred in 2013 for the transportation of certain pieces of furniture between Residence A and Residence C and of storing it at Residence C while the taxpayer resided at Residence B be deductible? CRA responded:
Paragraph 62(3)(b) states that moving expenses includes the cost to the taxpayer of transporting or storing household effects in the course of moving from the old residence to the new residence.
…[I]f ... you and your spouse ordinarily occupied Residences A, B and C, the costs of storing the furniture at Residence C while you reside at Residence B are not eligible moving expenses for the purposes of paragraph 62(3)(b).
If ... you and your spouse did not ordinarily reside at Residence B before ordinarily residing at Residence C, the expenses of storing the furniture at Residence C while you resided at Residence B would be moving expenses for the purposes of paragraph 62(3)(b). These moving expenses could then be deductible if the relocation from Residence A to Residence C is an eligible relocation and all the conditions in sections 62 and 67 are met.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Eligible Relocation | a multiple move may consist of one or more eligible relocations, and if there is one eligible relocation from Residence 1 to 3, the intermediate moving costs can be deductible | 416 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 - Subsection 62(3) - Paragraph 62(3)(a) | costs of moving pets by air could qualify | 84 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 - Subsection 62(3) | reasonable gas expenses but not car tune-up costs can qualify | 81 |
Paragraph 62(3)(f)
Administrative Policy
3 June 2013 External T.I. 2013-0486911E5 F - Frais de déménagement- réinstallations multiples
In 2011, due to a change in employment, the taxpayer moved from the taxpayer’s old residence ("Residence A") to an apartment ("Residence B") in another city, but before moving to Residence B, looked for another residence in that other city and did not find a new residence ("Residence C") there until 2013 and, as a result, moved from Residence B to Residence C. The 40-kilometre test was satisfied. In addition to the moving truck expenses, were the following expenses incurred in 2012 to move from Residence B to Residence C deductible in computing the taxpayer’s 2012 income: the inspection fees for Residence C; and notary fees related to the purchase of Residence C? CRA responded:
Paragraph 62(3)(f) provides that where the old residence is sold by the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or common-law partner as a result of an eligible relocation, the following expenses are eligible for the moving expense deduction:
- Legal services expenses related to the purchase of the new residence at which the taxpayer ordinarily resides after the relocation;
- the cost to the taxpayer of legal services in respect of the purchase of the new residence at which the taxpayer ordinarily resides after the relocation;
- any tax, fee or duty (other than any goods and services tax or value-added tax) imposed on the transfer or registration of title to the new residence.
The taxpayer cannot deduct any expenses for the acquisition of a new residence at which the taxpayer ordinarily resides after the relocation, other than the ones just described. For example, an inspection fee for a new residence is not eligible for the purposes of the moving expense deduction. ….
[N]otary fees are fees for legal services for the purposes of paragraph 62(3)(f).
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 62 - Subsection 62(1) | where successive moves from Residences A, B and C, expense moving from B to C are non-deductible if taxpayer did not ordinarily reside at Residence B | 308 |
Paragraph 62(3)(g)
Administrative Policy
30 September 2002 Internal T.I. 2002-0152107 F - BRANCHEMENT A DES SERVICES PUBLICS
After finding that “utilities” referred to in s. 8(1)(c)(iii) did not extend to cable television services, satellite television services and internet connection services, the Directorate went on to note:
[T]he expression "utilities" used in paragraph 62(3)(h) is broad enough to encompass telecommunications services such as cable television, satellite television and Internet connections.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 8 - Subsection 8(1) - Paragraph 8(1)(c) - Subparagraph 8(1)(c)(iii) | utilities do not extend to cable, satellite TV and internet in light of s. 8(1) preamble | 118 |